# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 4- 27 54

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca
ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.
Orla nd o P res to n, al so kn own as Ni zza P . El

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - St . Lou is

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Marc h 5 , 20 15 Fi le d: Marc h 2 6, 2 01 5 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SM ITH, GRUENDE R, an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
PER CURI AM.

Orla nd o Eri c Pres to n, al so kn own as Ni zza P . El, di rect ly app eal s t he di st ric t

co ur t’s jud gm en t i n h is cri m in al cas e. Afte r car efu l re vi ew, th is co ur t af fir m s. 1

The Hon or ab le Cat he rin e D. Perr y , Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t 1 fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.P res to n pl ed gu il ty to co ns pi rin g to co m m it an of fen se ag ai ns t th e Un i t e d St at es , m ai l frau d, an d op erat in g a ch op sh op , in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. §§ 37 1, 13 41 , an d 23 22

. As pa rt of th e writ te n pl ea ag reem en t, he wai ve d th e rig ht to ap pe al “ al l

n o n- juri sd ic ti on al , no n- se nt en ci ng is su es ”; an d th e rig ht to ap pe al “ al l se nt en c i n g is su es ot he r th an Cri m in al His to ry ” if th e d is tri ct co ur t ad op te d t he pa rti es ’ ag reed

up on t ot al of

fen se le ve l an d se nt en ced hi m wit hi n or be lo w th e Gui de li ne s ran ge

. The co ur t ad op te d th e pa rti es ’ ag reed -u po n to ta l of fen se le ve l, se nt e n c e d P res to n be lo w th e Gui de li ne s ran g e to 60 m on th s in pr is on , an d or de red hi m to pa y $1 94 ,10 7.9 3 in res ti tu ti on to id en ti fie d vi ct im s pu rs ua nt to 18 U.S.C. § 36 63 A. In a br ie f fi le d un de r And er

s v. Ca li fo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (19 67 ), co un se l argu es th at th e

res ti tu ti on am ou nt was ex ces si ve

. In a pr o se pl ead in g, Pres to n arg ue s th at th e di st ric t

co ur t l ack ed juri sd ic ti on ov er h im , th us hi s co nv ic ti on was a m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.

The ap pe al waiv er pr ecl ud es co un se l’s ch al le ng e to th e res ti tu ti on am ou nt

. Se e Uni te d St at es v. And is , 33 3 F.3 d 88 6, 88 9- 90 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 ) (en ba nc ) (ap pe al -wai ve r

ru le ). The res ti tu ti on is su e fal ls wit hi n th e sc op e of th e waiv er, se e Uni te d St at es v. Lee , 50 2 F.3 d 78 0, 7 8 0

- 8 1 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 ) (ap pe al waiv er ba rred ch al le ng e to

res ti tu ti on or de r, as de fen da nt waiv ed rig ht to ch al le ng e al l no n- juri sd ic ti on al is su es

an d di d no t pr es erv e ch al le ng e to res ti tu ti on ); th e reco rd de m on st rat es th at Pres to n kn owi ng ly an d i nt el li ge nt ly ent ered in to th e pl ea ag reem en t an d ap pe al waiv er, se e Ng uy en v. Uni te d St at es , 11 4 F.3 d 69 9, 70 3 (8t h Cir. 19 97 ) (d efen da nt ’s st at em en ts du rin g pl ea he ari ng carr y st ro ng pr es um pt i o n o f v e rit y ); an d en fo rci ng th e waiv er

wou ld no t res ul t in a m is carr ia g e o f ju s ti ce, se e Uni te d St at es v. Sc hu lt e , 43 6 F.3 d 84 9, 84 9- 51 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (ap pe al ch al le n g i n g res ti tu ti on am ou nt do es no t fal l wit hi n m is carr ia ge -o f-jus ti ce ex cep ti on to ap pe al -wai ve r ru le ). W hi le Pres to n’s pr o

se ch al le ng e to th e di st r i c t co ur t’s juri sd ic ti on is be y on d th e sc op e of th e ap pe al waiv er, it fai ls on th e m eri ts

. Se e 18 U.S. C

. § 3 2 3 1 (d is tri ct co ur ts ha ve or ig in al juri sd ic ti on of al l of

fen se s ag ai ns t la ws of Uni te d St at es ); Uni te d St at es v. Ja mes , 32 8 F.3 d 95 3, 95 4- 55 , 95 8 ( 7 t h C i r

. 2 00 3) (la ws of Uni te d St at es ap pl y to al l pe rs on s wit hi n it s bo rd ers ; affi rm in g c o n v i ct io n of de fen da nt “ Mo or is h na ti on al ”). An

-2

-in de pe nd en t rev ie w of th e reco rd un de r Pen so n v. Ohi o , 48 8 U.S

. 7 5 , 80 (1 98 8) ,

rev eal s n o n on fri vo lo us is su es for ap pe al

.

The jud gm en t i s af

fir m ed . Cou ns el ’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw is gra nt ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-3

-