Court Opinion

ID: 9368502
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-04 01:00:25.468435+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:08.698449
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-11173         Document: 00516635078             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/03/2023

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

                                                                                      FILED
                                                                               February 3, 2023
                                         No. 21-11173
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                      Clerk
   United States of America,

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Terran Oliver,

                                                                  Defendant—Appellant.

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:19-CR-408-2

   Before Elrod, Haynes, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Terran Oliver pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud
   under 18 U.S.C. § 371 (18 U.S.C. § 1343) pursuant to a plea agreement which
   included a waiver of the right to appeal, including waiving the right to appeal
   restitution awards. The waiver included an exception (thus allowing an
   appeal) if the sentence exceeds “the statutory maximum punishment.”
   Oliver filed this appeal to challenge the restitution order issued by the district

          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 21-11173        Document: 00516635078             Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/03/2023

                                         No. 21-11173

   court. 1 The Government contends this appeal is waived. We agree and,
   therefore, dismiss the appeal.
           Oliver’s conspiracy involved utilizing measures to steal airline miles
   such that the conspirators could sell airline tickets on American Airlines to
   travelers and keep the money. Oliver received pay for the tickets and sent
   some of that money to his co-conspirator in Poland named Wojciech
   Borkowski. In connection with sentencing him, the district court was
   required to award the losses sustained by American Airlines under the
   Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (“MVRA”).                          See 18 U.S.C.
   § 3663A(a)(1). Because American Airlines did not present that amount to
   the court, the court utilized the funds sent by Oliver to Borkowski to calculate
   the victim’s loss, resulting in a restitution amount of $369,110.90.
           Oliver contends that the Government cannot use evidence of a
   criminal defendant’s gain to approximate the victim’s loss. But he does not
   argue that the amount awarded actually exceeds American Airlines’ losses.
   We have interpreted the MVRA and other statutes to place several limits on
   restitution awards, including that the Government must prove that the
   defendant proximately caused damages at least equaling the award, and that
   the award may not exceed the victim’s loss. See, e.g., United States v. Winchel,
   896 F.3d 387, 389 (5th Cir. 2018); United States v. Chem. & Metal Indus., Inc.,
   677 F.3d 750, 752 (5th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Inman, 411 F.3d
   591, 595 (5th Cir. 2005) (holding that a restitution award exceeds statutory
   maximum where it is calculated using behavior other than “the conduct
   underlying the offense for which [the defendant] was convicted”); United
   States v. Bevon, 602 F. App’x 147, 154 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam) (holding

           1
            Oliver does not raise his prison sentence of 30 months or his supervised release
   of one year.

                                              2
Case: 21-11173        Document: 00516635078              Page: 3      Date Filed: 02/03/2023

                                          No. 21-11173

   that a restitution award exceeds statutory maximum where it is given for
   “victims other than victims of the offenses of conviction”); United States v.
   Bell, No. 21-11103, 2022 WL 17729413, at *2–3 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 2022) (per
   curiam) (unpublished) (same). 2 A defendant asserting these arguments may
   challenge a restitution award notwithstanding an appeal waiver. See, e.g.,
   United States v. Kim, 988 F.3d 803, 810–11 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct.
   225 (2021).
           These well-established statutory limits on restitution awards are not
   at issue here. Instead, Oliver simply disagrees with the methodology used
   and argues about the evidence considered. While those arguments might
   have had merit in an appeal that was not waived, his arguments do not raise
   a proper claim of exceeding the statutory maximum, the only issue he can
   raise. 3 Thus, those arguments are waived, and we must dismiss the appeal.
           DISMISSED.

           2
              Although Bell and related unpublished opinions cited herein “[are] not
   controlling precedent,” they “may be [cited as] persuasive authority.” Ballard v. Burton,
   444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4).
           3
             A recent case from our court, raised by the Government and to which Oliver did
   not respond, addressed this kind of situation under a different statute. United States v.
   Meredith, 52 F.4th 984, 987 n.1 (5th Cir. 2022) (explaining that it was not addressing the
   MVRA). It explained that just because a party contests the amount awarded, that does not
   mean that the amount awarded exceeds the statutory maximum. See id. at 987. That is similar
   here: Oliver’s challenges to the evidence do not mean that the district court exceeded the
   losses to American Airlines.

                                               3