IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10186

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER BLACKWELL,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CR-97-1

Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher Blackwell was convicted of wire fraud, sentenced to 210 

months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, and ordered to 

pay $8,554,751 in restitution. He challenges the validity of his plea agreement 

and appeal waiver and the district court’s calculation of the loss amount and 

restitution award and compliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.

* 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

December 2, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-10186 Document: 00512854015 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/02/2014
No. 14-10186

We review for plain error Blackwell’s contentions that the district court 

violated his right to due process and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 by 

accepting his guilty plea. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009). There is no plain error regarding the district court’s failure to 

personally advise Blackwell of its authority to order restitution since the 

magistrate judge confirmed that Blackwell understood that he would be 

subject to the penalties and consequences explained by the Government, which 

included restitution, if he pleaded guilty. See Burdick v. Quarterman, 504 F.3d 

545, 547-48 (5th Cir. 2007); United States v. Hekimain, 975 F.2d 1098, 1101 

(5th Cir. 1992). There is no plain error regarding the district court’s failure to 

inform Blackwell of the probable quantum of the restitution award because it 

is subject to reasonable dispute whether this is required. See Puckett, 556 U.S. 

at 135. 

We also review for plain error Blackwell’s contentions that the plea

agreement lacked consideration, the district court breached the plea 

agreement, and the plea agreement was ambiguous. See id. Assuming, 

arguendo, that consideration was required, the Government’s promises to not 

bring additional charges and to dismiss the remaining charge provided 

consideration. See Smith v. Estelle, 562 F.2d 1006, 1008 (5th Cir. 1977). The 

imposition of mandatory restitution to all the victims harmed by Blackwell’s 

fraudulent scheme was consistent with the parties’ reasonable understanding 

of the plea agreement. Thus, there is no plain error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 

135. 

The appeal waiver does not bar Blackwell’s claim that the restitution 

award exceeded the victims’ losses. See United States v. Sharma, 703 F.3d 318, 

321-22 & n.1 (5th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 78 (2013). Therefore, we 

need not resolve Blackwell’s challenge to the appeal waiver as it pertains to 

2

 Case: 14-10186 Document: 00512854015 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/02/2014
No. 14-10186

the restitution award. As to the loss amount, the plea agreement and appeal 

waiver do not mention or purport to govern how the loss amount will be 

calculated for purposes of determining Blackwell’s base offense level under the 

Sentencing Guidelines. Therefore, Blackwell’s attempt to avoid the appeal 

waiver by arguing that the plea agreement was ambiguous as to how the losses 

would be calculated is unavailing. The appeal waiver thus bars Blackwell’s 

claims of error regarding the loss amount and Rule 32. See United States v. 

Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). 

The district court was permitted to rely on the presentence report in 

finding, for restitution purposes, that Blackwell’s fraud caused the victims’ 

losses because Blackwell did not offer any competent rebuttal evidence. See

United States v. Gutierrez-Mendez, 752 F.3d 418, 429 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 

2014 WL 4096218 (Oct. 6, 2014) (No. 14-5846); United States v. Ollison, 555 

F.3d 152, 164 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court did not plainly err in 

calculating the amount of restitution owed to Jack Morris since Blackwell’s 

own testimony at the sentencing hearing supported the award. See Puckett, 

556 U.S. at 135. Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in 

determining that the victims’ losses resulted from Blackwell’s fraud and 

ordering Blackwell to pay restitution to all the victims. See Sharma, 703 F.3d 

at 322. 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 14-10186 Document: 00512854015 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/02/2014