Court Opinion

ID: 9899018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-15 19:00:58.983508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:19.243432
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10715    Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 11/15/2023   Page: 1 of 7

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-10715
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       DANIEL JOSEPH TISONE,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 2:22-cr-00039-SPC-NPM-1
                           ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-10715      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 2 of 7

       2                      Opinion of the Court                 23-10715

       Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Daniel Tisone appeals his 87-month sentence for wire fraud,
       bank fraud, illegal monetary transactions, and possession of ammu-
       nition by a felon. The government responds by moving to dismiss
       this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Tisone’s plea agree-
       ment. For the following reasons, we GRANT the government’s
       motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver.
                                         I.
              A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Tisone
       with wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2 (Counts
       One through Four); bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344
       and 2 (Counts Five through Ten); aggravated identity theft, in vio-
       lation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1028A(a)(1) and 2 (Counts Eleven and
       Twelve); illegal monetary transactions, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
       §§ 1957 and 2 (Counts Thirteen through Seventeen); and posses-
       sion of ammunition by a felon, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2)
       (Count Eighteen).
               Pursuant to an amended written plea agreement, Tisone
       agreed to plead guilty to Counts 2, 8, 14, and 18 and to make resti-
       tution of at least $2,617,447.17 to the victims of the offenses and to
       forfeit certain assets. The government agreed to: dismiss the in-
       dictment’s remaining counts; not charge Tisone with any other
       known offenses; recommend to the district court that he be sen-
       tenced within his applicable U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range as
USCA11 Case: 23-10715      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 3 of 7

       23-10715               Opinion of the Court                          3

       determined by the court; recommend that Tisone receive a
       three-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under
       U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a)-(b); and not oppose Tisone’s request for a sen-
       tence at the low end of the guideline range. The government re-
       served its right to report all information concerning Tisone’s back-
       ground, character, and conduct, to provide relevant factual infor-
       mation, including the totality of Tisone’s criminal activities, if any,
       not limited to the counts to which he pled, to respond to comments
       made by Tisone or his counsel, and to correct any misstatements
       or inaccuracies. The government also reserved the right to defend
       any decision the court made with regard to his sentence, even if it
       were inconsistent with its recommendations in the agreement. Ti-
       sone agreed to waive his right to appeal his sentence, including the
       ground that the court erred in determining the applicable guideline
       range, except he retained the right to appeal if his sentence ex-
       ceeded the guideline range as calculated by the district court, ex-
       ceeded the statutory maximum, or violated the Eighth Amend-
       ment.
               Both in the plea agreement and at his change-of-plea hear-
       ing, Tisone confirmed that he understood the plea agreement, had
       discussed it with his attorney, and was pleading freely and volun-
       tarily. Tisone admitted that he was in fact guilty, that the facts in
       the factual basis were true, and that the government “would be
       able to prove those specific facts and others beyond a reasonable
       doubt.” Tisone signed the agreement and initialed every page of
       the agreement. Tisone and his counsel also stated that Tisone un-
       derstood the terms of the agreement. In a report and
USCA11 Case: 23-10715      Document: 22-1      Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 4 of 7

       4                      Opinion of the Court                  23-10715

       recommendation, the magistrate judge recommended that the dis-
       trict court accept the guilty plea, and the district court adopted the
       report.
              A probation officer subsequently prepared a presentence in-
       vestigation report (“PSI”). Of relevance here, the PSI reported that
       Tisone was being held accountable for $10,792,154.17 in intended
       loss. It reached this figure by adding to the actual loss of approxi-
       mately $2,617,477.17 the amount of intended losses based on funds
       sought in loan applications that were never approved.
              At the sentencing hearing, the district court confirmed that
       Tisone had an opportunity to read over the PSI with his attorney.
       Tisone stated that he did not object to the factual accuracy of the
       PSI and only objected to the application of the guidelines based on
       the loss calculation. Tisone argued that it was in the district court’s
       discretion to only hold him responsible for actual loss and not the
       intended loss. The government responded that it supported the
       PSI’s calculation using the intended loss.
               The district court overruled Tisone’s objection and adopted
       the PSI guideline calculations and calculated a guideline range of
       108 to 135 months. The district court stated that it listened to coun-
       sel’s argument and Tisone’s statement, reviewed the PSI and sen-
       tencing memoranda, and considered the guideline range and the 18
       U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The court then granted the government’s
       § 5K1.1 motion and decreased his offense level two more levels,
       resulting in a guideline range of 87 to 108 months. The district
       court ultimately sentenced Tisone to 87 months of imprisonment
USCA11 Case: 23-10715       Document: 22-1       Date Filed: 11/15/2023      Page: 5 of 7

       23-10715                Opinion of the Court                            5

       and 3 years of supervised release on all counts to run concurrently.
       The court accepted the plea agreement and dismissed the remain-
       ing counts on the government’s motion. And Tisone did not object
       to the sentence.
                                          II.
              In his initial brief, Tisone argues that the district court clearly
       erred by relying on intended losses in determining the applicable
       guidelines loss amount. In response, the government moves to dis-
       miss Tisone’s appeal because he waived his right to appeal his sen-
       tence and because his challenge to the applicable loss amount does
       not fall within any exception to the appeal waiver. Tisone, how-
       ever, contends that the government breached the plea agreement
       by arguing in support of the PSI’s proposed intended loss amount
       despite excluding those facts from the plea agreement.
              We review the validity of a sentence appeal waiver de novo.
       United States v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1064, 1066 (11th Cir. 2008). A sen-
       tence appeal waiver will be enforced if it was made knowingly and
       voluntarily. United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1351 (11th Cir.
       1993). To establish that the waiver was made knowingly and vol-
       untarily, the government must show either that: (1) the district
       court specifically questioned the defendant about the waiver dur-
       ing the plea colloquy; or (2) the record makes clear that the defend-
       ant otherwise understood the full significance of the waiver. Id.
       The “touchstone” for assessing whether an appeal waiver was
       made knowingly and voluntarily is whether the court “clearly con-
       veyed to the defendant that he was giving up his right to appeal his
USCA11 Case: 23-10715     Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 11/15/2023    Page: 6 of 7

       6                     Opinion of the Court                23-10715

       sentence under most circumstances.” United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d
       1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020) (alterations adopted) (quoting Bushert,
       997 F.2d at 1351). And the district court need not discuss all the
       exceptions to the waiver. See id.
               Generally, a sentence appeal waiver does not bar a defend-
       ant’s claim that the government breached the very plea agreement
       that purports to bar him from appealing his sentence. United States
       v. Puentes-Hurtado, 794 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. 2015). In consid-
       ering whether there has been a breach of a plea agreement, this
       Court’s first step is to “determine the scope of the government’s
       promises.” United States v. Malone, 51 F.4th 1311, 1319 (11th Cir.
       2022). But a plea agreement’s unambiguous meaning controls.
       United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101, 1106 (11th Cir. 2004).
              We grant the government’s motion to dismiss this appeal
       pursuant to the appeal waiver in Tisone’s plea agreement and find
       that the plea agreement is enforceable. First, Tisone cannot raise a
       substantial claim that the government breached the plea agree-
       ment, as the government did not expressly stipulate that it would
       only argue for the actual losses in the plea agreement’s factual ba-
       sis. Further, the agreement stated that the government reserved
       the right to report all information about Tisone’s conduct to the
       court. And there could not have been any implied agreement re-
       garding the loss amount because there was no express promise in
       the plea agreement and the end of the agreement acknowledged
       that no other promises had been made. Second, the appeal waiver
       is enforceable because Tisone knowingly and voluntarily waived
USCA11 Case: 23-10715      Document: 22-1     Date Filed: 11/15/2023     Page: 7 of 7

       23-10715               Opinion of the Court                         7

       his right to appeal his sentence. See Bushert, 997 F.2d at 1351; Boyd,
       975 F.3d at 1192. At the change-of-plea hearing, the magistrate
       judge confirmed that Tisone had reviewed the plea agreement
       with his attorney and understood the terms of the agreement. The
       magistrate judge also specifically questioned Tisone about the ap-
       peal waiver and stated that, “other than these four exceptions,” Ti-
       sone was waiving his right to appeal. We conclude that none of
       those four exceptions are applicable here.
             Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss this ap-
       peal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Tisone’s plea agreement is
       GRANTED.