Court Opinion

ID: 9378523
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 19:00:59.890126+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:21.845854
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10187         Document: 00516672399             Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/10/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                       United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit

                                                                                      FILED
                                                                                March 10, 2023
                                        No. 22-10187                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk

   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Rudy Avila,

                                                                  Defendant—Appellant.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 3:21-cr-168-1

   Before Clement, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          After years of running a scheme that defrauded dozens of victims,
   Rudy Avila eventually pleaded guilty to a single count of wire fraud. He was
   later sentenced to 210 months in prison (followed by three years supervised
   release) and was ordered to pay $14,955,313 in restitution.
          On appeal, Avila argued that the record lacked sufficient evidence to
   sustain his guilty plea. But after the government supplemented the record

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10187        Document: 00516672399              Page: 2      Date Filed: 03/10/2023

                                         No. 22-10187

   pointing to the evidence Avila claimed missing, Avila now concedes that his
   plea was in fact properly accepted and the issues he raised in his initial brief
   are resolved.
           In his reply brief, however, he now argues that the district court’s
   restitution order violated the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act because it
   included restitution to an as-of-yet unidentified victim. But Avila failed to
   challenge the restitution order either before the district court or in his initial
   brief. Generally, any argument not raised in an opening brief is forfeited. See
   United States v. Zuniga, 860 F.3d 276, 284 n.9 (5th Cir. 2017). While we retain
   the “discretion to decide legal issues that are not timely raised,” United
   States v. Myers, 772 F.3d 213, 218 (5th Cir. 2014), we decline to exercise such
   discretion now.
           The district court is therefore AFFIRMED. 1

           1
              The parties disagree about whether Avila’s appeal waiver, bars his challenge to
   his restitution order. Because either way, we decline to address his forfeited issue, we do
   not address that question either.

                                               2