United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 23-1407

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Doug Hargrave,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids

 ____________

 Submitted: November 17, 2023

Filed: February 23, 2024

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________
PER CURIAM.

Doug Hargrave pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud. The district court*

sentenced him to fifteen months’ imprisonment and ordered $1,442,231.25 in

restitution. Hargrave appeals the district court’s determination of his advisory

sentencing guideline range and the amount of the restitution order. The appeal of the

guideline calculation is moot because Hargrave was released from prison while this

appeal was pending. Hargrave waived any challenge to restitution in his plea

agreement, so we dismiss the appeal. 

Go Cedar Rapids (“GoCR”) was an organization created to promote events in

Cedar Rapids, Iowa. GoCR planned Newbo Evolve, a three-day music and cultural

event to take place in August 2018. Hargrave was GoCR’s finance director. 

In December 2017, GoCR obtained a $1.5 million revolving line of credit from

a bank in Cedar Rapids to finance the Newbo event. By the summer of 2018, GoCR

was essentially out of money and at risk of cancelling the event. In July, Hargrave

twice misrepresented Newbo budgets to the bank in support of GoCR’s requests to

increase its loan, and the bank approved the additional loans. The Newbo event took

place, and GoCR lost more than $2,000,000. The bank received the revenue from the

event and suffered a loss on the remaining amount of the promissory note. 

Hargrave first challenges the district court’s calculation of actual loss and the

advisory sentencing guideline range that resulted from the calculation. See USSG

§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(H). Hargrave was released from custody, however, while this appeal

was pending. He does not suffer any collateral consequence from the expired term

*The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

-2-
of imprisonment, so the appeal is moot insofar as it challenges his prison term. See

Owen v. United States, 930 F.3d 989, 990 (8th Cir. 2019). 

Hargrave also challenges the district court’s order of restitution. In his plea

agreement, however, Hargrave stated that he “waives the right to appeal any nonjurisdictional issues, including but not limited to any issues relating to restitution.” 

“So long as there is no miscarriage of justice, we will enforce a defendant’s

waiver if the appeal falls within the scope of the waiver and the defendant entered

into the waiver and the plea agreement knowingly and voluntarily.” United States v.

Seizys, 864 F.3d 930, 931 (8th Cir. 2017); see United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886,

889-92 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc). The record establishes that Hargrave’s waiver was

knowing and voluntary. In his reply brief, Hargrave argues that enforcement of the

waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice because the court miscalculated the

restitution amount. But “a challenge to a restitution order based on sufficiency of the

evidence does not implicate the sort of ‘illegality’ that we said in Andis might justify

voiding a voluntary agreement between the parties.” United States v. Schulte, 436

F.3d 849, 851 (8th Cir. 2006). The waiver is enforceable. 

For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

______________________________

-3-