Court Opinion

ID: 9942489
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-21 15:01:10.37159+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:48:09.210923
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13109    Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 02/21/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13109
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
       versus
       SAMIH ABDEL RAHMAN,

                                                  Defendant-Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Middle District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 8:12-cr-00515-VMC-AEP-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13109      Document: 21-1         Date Filed: 02/21/2024   Page: 2 of 4

       2                      Opinion of the Court                   22-13109

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges
       PER CURIAM:
               Samih Abdel Rahman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to com-
       mit money laundering. His plea agreement included a forfeiture
       provision and a sentence appeal waiver. Years later, the govern-
       ment filed a motion seeking forfeiture of the contents of Rahman’s
       Federal Bureau of Prisons Trust Fund Account in connection with
       the forfeiture provision in his plea agreement. Rahman appeals the
       district court’s grant of that motion. The government moves to
       dismiss Rahman’s appeal because the sentence appeal waiver bars
       Rahman from objecting to the forfeiture.
                                             I.
             In 2014 Rahman pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit
       money laundering offenses. As part of his plea deal, Rahman
       agreed to forfeit “an amount to be determined by the court at sen-
       tencing representing the amount involved in the offense.” The
       agreement also included a sentence appeal waiver that stated Rah-
       man could not appeal his sentence “on any ground” unless he con-
       tended his sentence exceeded the applicable guidelines range, ex-
       ceeded the statutory maximum penalty, violated the Eighth
       Amendment, or unless the government appealed the sentence.
              During Rahman’s change of plea hearing, the magistrate
       judge told Rahman that his plea agreement included a provision
       that “expressly waive[s his] right to appeal [his] sentence unless cer-
       tain events occur” and then listed those four exceptions. The
USCA11 Case: 22-13109     Document: 21-1         Date Filed: 02/21/2024   Page: 3 of 4

       22-13109              Opinion of the Court                          3

       magistrate judge then asked Rahman if he “understand[s] that by
       this provision of [his] plea agreement, [he has] expressly waived
       [his] right to appeal [his] sentence” and Rahman confirmed that he
       understood. The court accepted Rahman’s guilty plea.
              The Court then entered a forfeiture money judgment find-
       ing that Rahman obtained at least $3,371,747.00 in proceeds from
       his participation in a money laundering conspiracy. The judgment
       allowed the government to seek forfeiture of any of Rahman’s
       property up to that amount.
               Years later, the government moved to forfeit the money in
       Rahman’s Inmate Trust Account as partial satisfaction for his order
       of forfeiture. The district court granted the government’s motion
       the same day. Rahman objected to the forfeiture order and filed a
       notice of appeal. The government moves to dismiss the appeal be-
       cause the appeal waiver in Rahman’s plea agreement forecloses his
       ability to appeal the forfeiture.
                                           II.
              We review de novo the validity and scope of a sentence ap-
       peal waiver. King v. United States, 41 F.4th 1363, 1366 (11th Cir.
       2022).
              Sentence appeal waivers are enforceable if a criminal defend-
       ant knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the waiver. See United
       States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350 (11th Cir. 1993). To prove a
       waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily, the government
       must show that either (1) the district court specifically questioned
       the defendant about the waiver during the plea colloquy, or (2) the
USCA11 Case: 22-13109       Document: 21-1       Date Filed: 02/21/2024       Page: 4 of 4

       4                        Opinion of the Court                    22-13109

       record makes clear that the defendant otherwise understood the
       full significance of the waiver. Id. at 1351.
               Sentence appeal waivers bar appeals of forfeiture orders be-
       cause “[f]orfeiture is an element of the sentence.” See Libretti v.
       United States, 516 U.S. 29, 38–39 (1995); 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) (“The
       court, in imposing sentence on a person convicted of [the offense
       Rahman pleaded guilty to] shall order that the person forfeit to the
       United States any property, real or personal, involved in such of-
       fense, or any property traceable to such property.”) (emphasis
       added); 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) (“If the defendant is convicted of the
       offense giving rise to the forfeiture, the court shall order the forfeiture
       of the property as part of the sentence in the criminal case.”) (emphasis
       added); cf. United States v. Johnson, 541 F.3d 1064, 1067, 1069 (11th
       Cir. 2008) (finding that a sentence appeal waiver barred an appeal
       of a restitution order because restitution penalties are “incorpo-
       rated into the traditional sentencing structure”).
              Here, Rahman knowingly and voluntarily waived the right
       to appeal his sentence because at his change of plea hearing, the
       magistrate judge explained the sentence appeal waiver and Rah-
       man confirmed that he understood the waiver. And none of the
       exceptions to the appeal waiver within Rahman’s plea agreement
       apply. Because Rahman cannot appeal his sentence, including any
       forfeiture orders accompanying that sentence, the government’s
       motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in Rah-
       man’s plea agreement is granted.
              APPEAL DISMISSED.