United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-2754

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Orlando Preston, also known as Nizza P. El

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis

____________

 Submitted: March 5, 2015

Filed: March 26, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Orlando Eric Preston, also known as Nizza P. El, directly appeals the district

court’s judgment in his criminal case. After careful review, this court affirms. 1

The Honorable Catherine D. Perry, Chief Judge, United States District Court

1

for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Preston pled guilty to conspiring to commit an offense against the United

States, mail fraud, and operating a chop shop, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1341,

and 2322. As part of the written plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal “all

non-jurisdictional, non-sentencing issues”; and the right to appeal “all sentencing

issues other than Criminal History” if the district court adopted the parties’ agreedupon total offense level and sentenced him within or below the Guidelines range. 

The court adopted the parties’ agreed-upon total offense level, sentenced Preston

below the Guidelines range to 60 months in prison, and ordered him to pay

$194,107.93 in restitution to identified victims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. In a

brief filed under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel argues that the

restitution amount was excessive. In a pro se pleading, Preston argues that the district

court lacked jurisdiction over him, thus his conviction was a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal waiver precludes counsel’s challenge to the restitution amount. See

United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8thCir. 2003) (en banc) (appeal-waiver

rule). The restitution issue falls within the scope of the waiver, see United States v.

Lee, 502 F.3d 780, 780-81 (8th Cir. 2007) (appeal waiver barred challenge to

restitution order, as defendant waived right to challenge all non-jurisdictional issues

and did not preserve challenge to restitution); the record demonstrates that Preston

knowingly and intelligently entered into the plea agreement and appeal waiver, see

Nguyen v. United States, 114 F.3d 699, 703 (8th Cir. 1997) (defendant’s statements

during plea hearing carry strong presumption of verity); and enforcing the waiver

would not result in a miscarriage of justice, see United States v. Schulte, 436 F.3d

849, 849-51 (8th Cir. 2006) (appeal challenging restitution amount does not fall

within miscarriage-of-justice exception to appeal-waiver rule). While Preston’s pro

se challenge to the district court’s jurisdiction is beyond the scope of the appeal

waiver, it fails on the merits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (district courts have original

jurisdiction of all offenses against laws of United States); United States v. James, 328

F.3d 953, 954-55, 958 (7th Cir. 2003) (laws of United States apply to all persons

within its borders; affirming conviction of defendant “Moorish national”). An

-2-
independent review of the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988),

reveals no nonfrivolous issues for appeal.

The judgment is affirmed. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

______________________________

-3-