In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________

No. 04-3453

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM PAPPAS,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 03 CR 293—J.P. Stadtmueller, Judge.

____________

SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 18, 2005—DECIDED MAY 27, 2005

____________

Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and KANNE and EVANS,

Circuit Judges.

FLAUM, Chief Judge. Defendant-appellant William Pappas

pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, for which

the district court sentenced him to two years of incarceration and two years of supervised release. In addition, the

court ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of

$53,255. Pappas appeals only the restitution order. For the

reasons stated herein, we affirm.
2 No. 04-3453

1 It appears that this is an arithmetic error; the difference between $153,470 and $85,215 is $68,255, not $69,095.

I. Background

On December 17, 2003, a grand jury returned a 22-count

indictment against Pappas and three alleged co-conspirators. In count one, all four defendants were charged with

conspiracy to commit bank fraud. Early the following year,

Pappas and the government entered into a plea agreement

under which Pappas agreed to plead guilty to count one and

the government agreed to move to dismiss the remaining 21

counts against him. As part of the agreement, Pappas

admitted that he had conspired with the other defendants

in several check-kiting schemes. In one scheme not charged

in the indictment but admitted to in his plea agreement,

Pappas caused a check-cashing business, Game Financial

Corp. d/b/a Game Cash, to lose $153,470, of which Pappas

had repaid $85,215 before being indicted. Pappas acknowledged in the plea agreement that he still owed Game Cash

$69,095.1

At his sentencing hearing, Pappas told the district court

that he had entered into a civil settlement agreement with

Certegy Check Services (“Certegy”), Game Cash’s successorin-interest, under which he was to pay $15,000 in exchange

for a release from further civil liability. He asked the

district court to delay ruling on the issue of restitution so

that the parties could “sort out” the implications of the

settlement. The court agreed to give the parties a chance to

brief the issue of restitution and entered a judgment which

set only the terms of imprisonment and supervised release.

The government filed a brief with the district court arguing that Pappas’s private settlement agreement did not

relieve him of his obligation to pay full restitution. It as-
No. 04-3453 3

2 By this time, the government had corrected the arithmetic error.

serted that Pappas still owed Certegy $53,255 ($68,2552

minus the $15,000 Pappas had paid under the settlement

agreement). Pappas did not file a response to the government’s brief or make any filings with regard to restitution.

Thereafter, the court adopted the government’s position and

entered an order and an amended judgment directing Pappas

to pay restitution to Certegy in the amount of $53,255.

Pappas appeals the judgment, essentially arguing that his

civil settlement relieves him of the obligation to pay restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act

(“MVRA”). The government responds that Pappas either

waived his right to challenge the restitution order on this

ground by entering into the plea agreement, or forfeited his

arguments regarding restitution by failing to raise them in

the district court. Pappas did not file an appellate reply brief

and has not addressed the government’s waiver and forfeiture arguments.

II. Discussion

Before we can reach the merits of Pappas’s appeal of the

restitution order, we must determine if he either waived

or forfeited the issue. “Waiver and forfeiture are related

doctrines; waiver occurs when a defendant intentionally relinquishes or abandons a known right, whereas forfeiture

occurs when a defendant fails to timely assert his rights.”

United States v. Harris, 230 F.3d 1054, 1058 (7th Cir. 2000)

(citing United States v. Staples, 202 F.3d 992, 995 (7th Cir.

2000); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-34 (1993)).

“A forfeiture is basically an oversight; a waiver is a deliberate decision not to present a ground for relief that might

be available in the law.” United States v. Cook, 406 F.3d 485

(7th Cir. 2005). While we review forfeited issues for plain
4 No. 04-3453

error, “we cannot review waived issues at all because a

valid waiver leaves no error for us to correct on appeal.”

Harris, 230 F.3d at 1058-59.

Pappas does not dispute that Game Cash’s successor is a

proper recipient of restitution. Rather, he argues that, in

light of his civil settlement, he should not be required to pay

restitution under the MVRA. The government contends that

Pappas waived his right to challenge the district court’s

order of restitution by expressly agreeing in a written plea

agreement to the amount of restitution ordered by the

district court. We review plea agreements like we review

contracts, applying the principles of contract law and asking

whether the agreement encompasses a “meeting of the

minds” between the parties. See United States v. Randle,

324 F.3d 550, 557-58 (7th Cir. 2003). If a defendant knowingly agreed to relinquish a specific right in exchange for

concessions from the government, then that right has been

intentionally abandoned and thus waived. See Cook, 406

F.3d 485; Olano, 507 U.S. at 733.

Here, the plea agreement between Pappas and the

government contained the following term:

The defendant agrees to pay restitution for all losses relating to the offense of conviction and all losses covered

by the same course of conduct or common scheme or

plan as the offense of conviction, in an amount to be

determined by the Court. In particular, the defendant

agrees to pay [Game Cash] restitution in the amount of

$69,095 or such other amount as may be determined by

the Court.

In accepting this term, Pappas expressly agreed to pay

restitution in the amount of $69,095 (or $68,255 after the

error was corrected) and waived the right to argue that he

should be required to pay a lesser amount under the MVRA.

To date, Pappas has paid only $15,000 of the promised

$68,255. The district court reduced the amount of restitu-
No. 04-3453 5

tion so that Pappas would be required to pay only $53,255,

the balance of the promised amount. In doing so, the court

followed the express agreement of the parties and so Pappas

“has no basis for complaint.” United States v. Peterson, 268

F.3d 533, 535 (7th Cir. 2001); see also United States v.

Driver, 242 F.3d 767, 770 (7th Cir. 2001) (“When the court

does exactly what the defendant wants, the defendant has

waived rather than simply forfeited any argument that

things should have been done otherwise.”).

Although they may not have anticipated the civil settlement when entering into the plea agreement, both Pappas

and the government assumed the risk of future changes in

circumstances when they bound themselves in exchange for

certain benefits. See United States v. Bownes, 405 F.3d 634,

636 (7th Cir. 2005). The government wanted Pappas to repay Game Cash $68,255 and offered concessions, including

dismissing 21 of the 22 counts against him, that Pappas and

his lawyer considered adequate to induce him to forgo his

right to argue for a reduction of the amount of restitution.

See id. Had Pappas wished to leave open the opportunity to

argue that his restitutionary obligations were contingent

upon the absence of a civil settlement, he could have chosen

to not enter into the plea agreement unless such a limitation

was added. He did not. Pappas has presented no evidence

that he agreed to anything less than the unconditional payment of $68,255. Accordingly, he waived his right to argue

that he should pay less.

III. Conclusion

Pappas’s waiver precludes appellate consideration of

whether his civil settlement relieves him of the obligation

to pay restitution under the MVRA. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
6 No. 04-3453

A true Copy:

Teste: 

 ________________________________

Clerk of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 

USCA-02-C-0072—5-27-05