IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20550

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ASHVINBHAI CHAUDHARI,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-385-24

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ashvinbhai Chaudhari pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money 

laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and was sentenced to 87 months 

of imprisonment, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. He was 

also ordered to pay $8,970,396.15 in restitution. For the first time on appeal, 

he argues that the district court erred in denying the Government’s motion for 

a downward departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, p.s., that the within-guidelines 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 27, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20550 Document: 00515323265 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/27/2020
No. 18-20550

2

sentence imposed is unreasonable, and that the restitution award is excessive. 

The Government responds that the arguments are barred by the waiver-ofappeal provision in the written plea agreement.

Review of the record reflects that Chaudhari knew he had a right to 

appeal and was giving up that right as part of his plea, and thus that his appeal 

waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 

733, 736 (5th Cir. 2014); see also FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(N). Chaudhari now 

asserts, for the first time, that the waiver should not apply due to the district 

court’s failure at rearraignment to admonish him correctly under Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure 11. We review these arguments for plain error only. See 

United States v. Oliver, 630 F.3d 397, 411 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Although Chaudhari complains that he was never informed that the 

district court could deny the Government’s § 5K1.1 motion, Rule 11 does not 

require such an admonishment. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b). His assertion that 

he was not advised of the nature of the charges to which he was pleading is 

belied by the record, which shows that the district court advised him of the 

elements of the charge to which he was pleading guilty and confirmed that 

Chaudhari understood. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(G). 

To the extent that Chaudhari asserts that the plea agreement and 

waiver are not binding because the district court did not advise him of its 

authority to order restitution, the argument is unavailing. Although the 

district court clearly erred in failing to admonish Chaudhari of its authority to 

order restitution, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(K), Chaudhari has not 

demonstrated a reasonable probability that, but for the error, he would not 

have pleaded guilty. See United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 

(2004). The written plea agreement, which Chaudhari confirmed he had read 

and understood, specifically informed him of the court’s authority to order 

 Case: 18-20550 Document: 00515323265 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/27/2020
No. 18-20550

3

restitution and further stipulated that Chaudhari would be responsible for a 

guideline loss amount between $3,500,000 and $9,500,000. Additionally, 

Chaudhari was advised of the amount of restitution prior to sentencing; the 

district court announced the amount at sentencing; and Chaudhari raised no 

objection. Consequently, in view of the entire record, Chaudhari’s decision to 

plead guilty was an informed one, and the Rule 11 omission did not affect his 

substantial rights. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009); 

Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. at 83. 

Inasmuch as Chaudhari asserts that the Government is judicially 

estopped from enforcing the appellate waiver, the argument is meritless even 

if the doctrine of judicial estoppel applies in criminal cases. See Zedner v. 

United States, 547 U.S. 489, 503-06 (2006). The Government’s invocation of 

the waiver-of-appeal provision is not clearly inconsistent with its having filed 

a § 5K1.1 motion for a downward departure in the district court. See Gabarick 

v. Laurin Mar. (Am.) Inc., 753 F.3d 550, 553 (5th Cir. 2014).

By its terms, Chaudhari’s valid and enforceable waiver bars his claims 

that the district court erred in denying the § 5K1.1 motion and that his 

sentence is unreasonable. Accordingly, we DISMISS the appeal IN PART 

pursuant to the waiver. Because we have addressed the merits of Chaudhari’s

restitution argument in the course of assessing the waiver’s enforceability, we 

AFFIRM IN PART the judgment of the district court with respect to the 

restitution order. 

 Case: 18-20550 Document: 00515323265 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/27/2020