United States v. Daren Palmer

512 F. App'x 698

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2013
• Docket: 11-30281
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Daren L. Palmer appeals the district court’s order that he pay restitution 1 in the amount of $29,842,731 to the victims of the wire fraud scheme 2 to which he pled guilty. 3 We affirm in part and dismiss in part.

(1) Because Palmer’s plea agreement did not spell out the amount of restitution with sufficient accuracy, he did not effectively waive his right to appeal the amount of restitution when he entered into that agreement. See United States v. Tsosie, 639 F.3d 1213, 1217-18 (9th Cir.2011); United States v. Gordon, 393 F.3d 1044, 1049-50 (9th Cir.2004); United States v. Phillips, 174 F.3d 1074, 1075-76 (9th Cir.1999); see also United States v. Harris, 628 F.3d 1203, 1205 (9th Cir.2011). Thus, we will proceed with that portion of his appeal.

(2) At sentencing, counsel expressly agreed that the amount in question was one with which “we do not have any issue,” and with which “we do not disagree.” That smacks of a waiver rather than a forfeiture of his restitution claim, 4 but the government argues that we should review for plain error. 5 We have done just that, and in light of the evidence before the district court, we discover no error, much less error that was plain. Moreover, while Palmer objects that the district court did not give an exegesis on why it adopted the restitution amount, it is plain from the record that the court did consider the matter, 6 and that the information before it was reliable. 7 In short, whether we deem the issue waived or review it for plain error, the result is the same; 8 Palmer cannot prevail.

(3)To the extent that Palmer seeks to appeal the length of his sentence, we dismiss his appeal because he waived his appeal rights in his plea agreement. See Harris, 628 F.3d at 1205; United States v. Anglin, 215 F.3d 1064, 1065-66 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1 . See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A.

2 . See id. § 1343; see also id. § 1957.

3 . He also suggests that the length of his sentence should be reviewed. See USSG § 2B 1.1(b) (Offenses Involving Fraud and Deceit).

4 . See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-34, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 1777, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993).

5 . See id. at 734, 113 S.Ct. at 1777-79; United States v. Zink, 107 F.3d 716, 718 (9th Cir.1997).

6 . See United States v. Petri, 706 F.3d 1178, 1186 (9th Cir.2013); United States v. Mills, 991 F.2d 609, 611 (9th Cir.1993).

7 . See United States v. Ali, 620 F.3d 1062, 1073 n. 10 (9th Cir.2010).

8 . See United States v. Caperell, 938 F.2d 975, 980 (9th Cir.1991).