NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 25a0040n.06
No. 24-3115
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Jan 28, 2025 KELLY L. STEPHENS, Clerk ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT v. ) COURT FOR THE NORTHERN ) DISTRICT OF OHIO SAMIR MOHAMMAD, ) Defendant-Appellant. ) OPINION )
Before: BOGGS, GIBBONS, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.
BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Samir Mohammad pleaded guilty to
conspiracy and fraud-related charges pursuant to a written plea agreement that included an
appellate-waiver provision. As part of his guilty plea, Mohammad agreed to pay restitution on a
joint-and-several basis. Mohammad now appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to
modify and discharge his restitution obligation on the basis that the district court ordered him to
pay restitution jointly and severally with his co-conspirators, even though, at their sentencings, the
restitution obligations of Mohammad’s co-conspirators were not uniformly joint and several.
The government argues that Mohammad’s appeal should be dismissed based on the
appellate-waiver provision in his plea agreement. We agree. We DISMISS Mohammad’s appeal
because we find that Mohammad validly waived the right to appeal his sentence. No. 24-3115, United States v. Mohammad
BACKGROUND
A. Facts
In September 2011, Samir Mohammad was indicted by a federal grand jury for his role in
a pay-to-play scheme uncovered in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.1 The indictment sets out the
following: Mohammad served as Cuyahoga County’s deputy auditor. His responsibilities included
maintaining the Auditor’s Office budget and working on Cuyahoga’s Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) project. Mohammad conspired with others to solicit and accept bribes from Broma
Information Technology, an IT consulting firm, and in return, to award business to Broma on the
GIS project. For his role in the “GIS/Broma scheme,” Mohammad was charged with five counts:
1. RICO Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)); 2. Conspiracy to Commit Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds (18 U.S.C. § 371); 3. Hobbs Act Conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1951); 4. Tampering with a Witness (18 U.S.C. §§ 1512(b)(1)(2) & (3)); and 5. False Statements to Law Enforcement (18 U.S.C. § 1001).
In October 2012, pursuant to a written plea agreement, Mohammad entered a guilty plea to each
of the five counts.
B. The Plea Agreement and Appellate Waiver
Mohammad’s plea agreement contained a “Waiver of Appellate Rights.” The appellate
waiver reads as follows:
Defendant acknowledges having been advised by counsel of Defendant’s rights, in limited circumstances, to appeal the conviction or sentence in this case, including the appeal right conferred by 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and to challenge the conviction or sentence collaterally through a post-conviction proceeding, including a proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant expressly and voluntarily waives those rights, except as specially reserved below. Defendant reserves the right to appeal: (a) any punishment in excess 1 In 2007, the FBI launched a multi-year investigation that uncovered large-scale public corruption in Cuyahoga County. The probe resulted in the arrests of dozens of individuals, including public officials, judicial officers, and private businessmen, and resulted in the filing of several indictments.
-2- No. 24-3115, United States v. Mohammad
of the statutory maximum; (b) any sentence to the extent it exceeds offense level 29 before applying reductions for acceptance of responsibility and/or substantial assistance, or (c) the Court’s determination of Defendant’s Criminal History Category. Nothing in this paragraph shall act as a bar to Defendant perfecting any legal remedies Defendant may otherwise have on appeal or collateral attack with respect to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct.
During his change-of-plea hearing, Mohammad confirmed that he understood each part of the
waiver paragraph. After reviewing each part of the appellate waiver, the district court stressed to
Mohammad that he was “giving up [his] right to appeal [his] conviction and sentence . . . except
in very limited circumstances.”
Mohammad initialed each page of the plea agreement and added his signature to the page
titled “Signatures.” On the “Signatures” page, directly above Mohammad’s signature, the plea
agreement reads:
Defendant: I have read this entire plea agreement and have discussed it with my attorney. I have initialed each page of the agreement to signify that I understand and approve the provisions on that page. I am entering this agreement voluntarily and of my own free will. No threats have been made to me, nor am I under the influence of anything that could impair my ability to understand this agreement.
Mohammad confirmed with the court that he initialed and signed the plea agreement after he “had
adequate time and opportunity to read and review the agreement . . . and discuss it with [his]
attorney.”
The plea agreement also required Mohammad to pay “full restitution as ordered by the
Court pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 3663A] on a joint and several basis . . . for the losses caused by
[his] relevant conduct in this case, as defined under Guideline § 1B1.3.” The forfeiture paragraph
explains that “pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c),” Mohammad must
forfeit $50,000, “as it constitutes proceeds traceable to the commission of the criminal activity
-3- No. 24-3115, United States v. Mohammad
charged in” two of the counts. The forfeiture order stipulates that the $50,000 will be credited to
Mohammad “when the Court calculates his restitution at sentencing.”
As with the appellate waiver, the district court discussed the restitution and forfeiture
provisions of the plea agreement with Mohammad. Mohammad confirmed his understanding of
both sections. The court also asked the government to “fully explain the relationship between the
restitution and forfeiture and the terms of the agreement as it pertains to those two items.” The
government explained that “[r]estitution . . . as everyone has agreed and understands, will be
determined . . . between now and the time of sentencing following an investigation by the probation
department.” The forfeiture provision, the government explained, “relates to Counts 2 and 3. . . .
[T]his $50,000 amount of forfeiture represents Mr. Mohammad’s roughly—roughly, Mr.
Mohammad’s portion of that particular conduct in Counts 2 and 3. And he acknowledges that that
money is subject to forfeiture.” Finally, the government added that the $50,000 “will be credited
against [Mohammad’s] ultimate restitution obligation as that is calculated.” Mohammad confirmed
with the court that he was “listening closely” to the government’s overview of the restitution and
forfeiture provisions and had a “full understanding of the terms.”
In January 2013, the court sentenced Mohammad after it had sentenced one of
Mohammad’s co-conspirators, but before it had sentenced two of his other co-conspirators.2
During sentencing, the court began with calculating an advisory sentence. The court determined
an offense level of 23 and a criminal-history category of I, leading to a sentencing range of 46 to
57 months; neither the government nor Mohammad’s counsel objected.
2 Mohammad had five co-conspirators: Daniel P. Gallagher, Frank Russo, John Kevin Kelley, Anthony Ma, and Kevin Payne. Ma and Payne both died before Mohammad was sentenced.
-4- No. 24-3115, United States v. Mohammad
The court then addressed restitution and forfeiture. The government confirmed that it had
received the aforementioned $50,000 check as forfeiture, which would be credited to Mohammad’s
restitution obligation. The government then advised the court that it was seeking a restitution order
“that is joint and several [with Mohammad’s co-conspirators]” on Counts 2 and 3, the counts
relating to the GIS/Broma Scheme.
The court said, “in all likelihood, then, as it pertains to Mr. Mohammad, even though it’s
on a joint and several basis, because of all the payments that will be credited, he will not owe any
more than the $50,000 that he’s paying by way of forfeiture.” The government said, “[t]hat’s our
expectation . . . . But, obviously, we will know after it’s all paid, and there may be some balance
outstanding.” The court agreed, adding a fuller explanation:
[T]here is one thing to say about what the expectation is, but then the reality of it and the final analysis might not meet that expectation, and I think everyone should understand that, that once that order goes on, it’s joint and several, and if for some reason the other defendants involved . . . if for some reason the $190,000 restitution amount isn’t paid in full by their collective contributions, then there would be an outstanding portion of it that could be attributable and collected from Mr. Mohammad.
Mohammad’s counsel agreed with the court’s characterization but noted that Mohammad’s “direct
involvement . . . in the conspiracy didn’t amount anywhere near that $50,000 figure, or $190,000
figure.” The court replied, “[e]xcept the standard is a little different when you’re dealing with—
coconspirators.” Mohammad’s counsel immediately conceded that “direct involvement” is not the
proper measure for restitution in a conspiracy but noted that he “did want to make that point” about
Mohammad’s involvement in the conspiracy. Ultimately, the parties all agreed that Mohammad’s
-5- No. 24-3115, United States v. Mohammad
$190,000 restitution obligation to Cuyahoga County, the victim of the conspiracy, would be joint
and several.3
Mohammad’s counsel sought to clarify whether Gallagher, Russo, and Kelley—
Mohammad’s still-living co-conspirators—would “also be joint and several as it relates to the
restitution.” The government said, “I believe it will,” but the court stressed that it “can’t speak for
the government at this point,” adding that “[the co-conspirators] are not before me for sentencing,
and so I can’t speak and will not speak to that issue.” The court soon after emphasized—after the
government said that its expectation is for the co-conspirators’ liabilities to be joint and several—
that “it would be very, very inappropriate and premature for [the] court to make that statement at
this juncture, because they are not before [the] court for sentencing at this point.”
The court sentenced Mohammad to a low-end-of-the-Guidelines sentence of 46 months of
imprisonment for each count, to run concurrently. Mohammad did not object to the sentence. The
judgment accurately reflected that Mohammad was liable for the full $190,000 of restitution on a
joint-and-several basis, and it listed the $50,000 forfeiture obligation that Mohammad had already
fulfilled.
Mohammad’s still living co-conspirators—Gallagher, Russo, and Kelley—also pleaded
guilty to their crimes, but their restitution orders were not uniformly joint and several with
Mohammad, apparently disappointing Mohammad’s expectations.4
3 As suggested above, Mohammad’s $190,000 restitution obligation relates to the counts attributable to the GIS/Broma scheme. 4 In response to a writ and various motions filed by Mohammad to “clarify and correct the record” for Mohammad’s restitution obligation, the court explained in a September 2023 Order that “[g]iven the complexity of the underlying federal investigation and the number of criminal schemes involved, as well as the number of defendants and co-conspirators involved spread out over many cases before different judges, it is not surprising that the judgment entries and restitution orders are not entirely consistent.”
-6- No. 24-3115, United States v. Mohammad
Mohammad timely appealed his restitution order. He argues that he should be “free from
any further restitution payments.” While Mohammad does not dispute that his own sentence
“included making restitution in the amount of $190,000,” he argues that the district court “erred in
ending Mr. Gallagher’s restitution obligation” because Gallagher should have been jointly and
severally liable with Mohammad. After all, Mohammad says, he and his co-conspirators “all
participated in the overall scheme.” According to Mohammad, if his co-conspirators’ sentences
properly reflected the parties’ respective culpability, then he would no longer have any restitution
obligations.
In addition to forcefully responding to the merits of Mohammad’s appeal,5 the government
brings this court’s attention to the appellate-waiver provision in Mohammad’s plea agreement. The
government argues, “Mohammad knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal the district
court’s restitution order, including its denial of his motion to modify [his restitution obligation].”
Because we determine that Mohammad validly waived his right to appeal his sentence, we need
not address the merits of his restitution arguments.
DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
“The question of whether a defendant waived the right to appeal his sentence in a valid
plea agreement is reviewed de novo.” United States v. Martinez, 430 F. App’x 406, 409 (6th Cir.
2011) (citing United States v. Thomas, 605 F.3d 300, 312 (6th Cir.2010)).
5 Among other things, the government points out that Mohammad has already been granted much of the relief he seeks: some of the restitution payments made by his co-conspirators have already been credited toward Mohammad’s restitution obligation, which has the same effect to his benefit as joint-and- several liability.
-7- No. 24-3115, United States v. Mohammad
B. Legal Framework
It is axiomatic that criminal defendants may waive their right to appeal their sentence as
part of a valid plea agreement. United States v. Milliron, 984 F.3d 1188, 1192 (6th Cir. 2021). This
court has “repeatedly recognized that restitution is a part of a defendant’s sentence.” United States
v. Rafidi, 730 F. App’x 338, 340 (6th Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Winans, 748 F.3d 268, 271
(6th Cir. 2014)). Thus, a valid waiver provision that covers a criminal defendant’s sentence
extinguishes that defendant’s right to appeal a restitution order. Ibid. (citing United States v. Sharp,
442 F.3d 946, 948, 952 (6th Cir. 2006)).
“A waiver provision is binding and forecloses appellate review if (1) the defendant’s claim
falls within the scope of the appeal waiver provision; and (2) the defendant ‘knowingly and
voluntarily’ agreed to the plea agreement and waiver.” Milliron, 984 F.3d at 1193 (citing United
States v. Toth, 668 F.3d 374, 377–78 (6th Cir. 2012)).
The waiver provision here functions to bar Mohammad’s appeal because 1) Mohammad’s
claim falls within the scope of the provision; and 2) he knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the
plea agreement and waiver.
C. Scope of the Appellate-Waiver Provision
First, Mohammad’s appeal falls within the scope of the appellate-waiver provision. With
five narrow exceptions, Mohammad “expressly and voluntarily” waived his right to appeal his
conviction or sentence. Mohammad reserved the right to appeal: 1) a punishment in excess of the
statutory maximum; 2) a sentence that exceeds offense level 29 before applying reductions for
acceptance of responsibility and/or substantial assistance; 3) the court’s criminal-history-category
determination; 4) ineffective assistance of counsel; and 5) prosecutorial misconduct.
-8- No. 24-3115, United States v. Mohammad
None of those exceptions apply here. Mohammad clearly does not make any arguments
about the court’s criminal-history-category determination, ineffective assistance of counsel, or
prosecutorial misconduct. That leaves this court to determine whether Mohammad is appealing:
1) a punishment in excess of the statutory maximum; or 2) a sentence that exceeds offense level
29 before applying the relevant reductions.
He is not appealing either. Mohammad received a 46-month within-Guideline sentence,
and there is no applicable statutory maximum for restitution attributable to a conspiracy. See Sharp,
442 F.3d at 952 (“[A]lthough ‘restitution constitutes punishment[,] . . . the restitution statutes do
not specify a statutory maximum. . . . ”’ (second alteration in original) (quoting United States v.
Sosebee, 419 F.3d 451, 461 (6th Cir. 2005))); cf. United States v. Freeman, 640 F.3d 180, 193 (6th
Cir. 2011) (distinguishing Sharp because Sharp involved a conspiracy charge and holding that
restitution does set a statutory maximum in some cases: “the amount causally linked to the offense
of conviction” (quoting United States v. Gordon, 480 F.3d 1205, 1210 (10th Cir. 2007))).6
Nor did Mohammad receive a sentence that exceeds offense level 29 before applying
reductions for acceptance of responsibility and substantial assistance. The court started with a base-
offense-level of 14, added 2 levels under USSG § 2C1.1(b)(1) because the offense involved more
than one bribe, added 12 levels under § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) because the value of anything obtained by
a public official or others acting with a public official exceeded $200,000, and then added 4 levels
because the offense involved an elected public official, making the total adjusted offense level at
that point 32. Then, Mohammad received a 3-level reduction under § 3B1.2 because the court
found that Mohammad was “more than a minor participant but less than a minimal participant” in
6 Freeman does not cut against Sharp’s applicability to this case because Mohammad, like the defendant in Sharp and unlike the defendant in Freeman, pleaded guilty to a conspiracy count. See Freeman, 640 F.3d at 193.
-9- No. 24-3115, United States v. Mohammad
a RICO conspiracy.7 Thus, the offense level was 29 before any reductions for acceptance of
responsibility and substantial assistance.8
D. Whether Mohammad Knowingly and Voluntarily Agreed to the Waiver
Second, we hold that Mohammad knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the plea agreement
and waiver therein, and the district court complied with Rule 11.
Because Mohammad does not argue that he did not knowingly and voluntarily agree to the
plea agreement or waiver, we need not conduct analysis on this point. See Freeman, 640 F.3d at
192 (holding that where the defendant “does not deny that his agreement was knowing, voluntary,
and intelligent,” this court need not address that issue (quoting United States v. Caruthers, 458
F.3d 459, 470 n.3 (6th Cir. 2006))). Mohammad does not articulate any basis to attack the appellate-
waiver provision—indeed, his brief does not mention the provision at all.
To be sure, in any case, “[t]he record here clearly demonstrates that [Mohammad]
understood the waiver contained in the plea agreement and consented to it voluntarily.” United
States v. Fleming, 239 F.3d 761, 764 (6th Cir. 2001); see ibid. (“The sine qua non of a valid waiver
is that the defendant enter into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily.”).
To determine whether Mohammad knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the plea agreement
and waiver, we review his written agreement and plea colloquy. See United States v. Pitts, 997 F.3d
688, 701 (6th Cir. 2021). In doing so, we ensure the district court’s compliance with Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 11, which requires the court to “address the defendant personally in open
7 The district court appears to have misspoken. The court clearly meant to say that Mohammad was more than a “minimal participant,” but less than a “minor participant”—a “minimal participant” is less involved in an offense than a “minor participant.” See USSG §3B1.2. In any event, Mohammad properly received a 3-level reduction for being between a “minimal” and “minor” participant. 8 Mohammad did receive a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and an additional 3- level reduction for substantial assistance, ending up at an offense level of 23.
- 10 - No. 24-3115, United States v. Mohammad
court . . . [and] inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands . . . the terms
of any plea-agreement provision waiving the right to appeal or to collaterally attack the sentence.”
Sharp, 442 F.3d at 949 (quoting FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)).
Written agreement. As the government points out, the appellate-waiver provision as
drafted in the plea agreement is both “succinct and clear.” The provision emphasizes that
Mohammad can only appeal his conviction or sentence “in limited circumstances.” Those limited
circumstances say nothing about restitution. Moreover, the written agreement is explicit in its
requirement that Mohammad must pay restitution “on a joint and several basis.”
Plea colloquy. “[T]he record reflects the care taken by the district court in this case to
ensure that [Mohammad] understood the full ramifications of his plea.” Toth, 668 F.3d at 379. As
discussed above, the court confirmed that Mohammad had discussed the plea agreement with
counsel, understood it, and read it in full before signing it. Likewise, as also outlined above, the
court discussed the appellate-waiver provision with Mohammad, emphasizing to Mohammad that
he was “giving up [his] right to appeal [his] conviction and sentence . . . except in very limited
circumstances.”
Mohammad surely knew that restitution was a part of his sentence because the district court
engaged in detailed discussions with Mohammad regarding his restitution obligations. Again, the
court went as far as warning Mohammad that the “reality of” the situation might not meet
Mohammad’s “expectation”: “if for some reason the $190,000 restitution amount isn’t paid in full
by [his co-conspirators’] collective contributions, then there would be an outstanding portion of it
that could be attributable and collected from [him],” the court explained.
Mohammad’s brief presses that the government represented that Mohammad’s co-
conspirators would also be jointly and severally liable for the $190,000 in restitution.
- 11 - No. 24-3115, United States v. Mohammad
This argument could go to whether Mohammad knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the plea
agreement, although it is not framed as such in Mohammad’s brief. Nevertheless, such an argument
is unavailing. The court repeatedly stressed that Mohammad’s co-conspirators were not before it.
Although the government expressed an “expectation” that the other co-conspirators would also be
jointly and severally liable for their respective restitution obligations, “a fundamental principle of
appellate procedure” is that this court “review[s] district-court errors, not government ones.”
United States v. Simmonds, 62 F.4th 961, 966 (6th Cir. 2023). And the district court was explicit
about the risks of joint and several liability.
Had Mohammad “wished to reserve his right to appeal the restitution order, he should have
negotiated for that right in his plea agreement.” Sharp, 442 F.3d at 952. Because he did not do so,
and indeed knowingly and voluntarily waived any right to appeal the district court’s restitution
order, Mohammad’s appeal is not properly before this court.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, we DISMISS Mohammad’s appeal.
- 12 -