Case: 21-50487 Document: 00516539505 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/09/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 9, 2022 No. 21-50487 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Christopher Matthew Meredith, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:19-CR-39-1 Before Stewart, Willett, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge: The question presented is whether Christopher Meredith can appeal a sentencing enhancement and restitution award in the face of an appeal waiver. He cannot. We therefore dismiss the appeal. I. Christopher Meredith created a fake company, supplied it with fake financials and fake contracts, and used the same to solicit more than $7 million from unwary investors. The Government indicted him. Meredith Case: 21-50487 Document: 00516539505 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/09/2022 No. 21-50487 sought a plea deal from the Government. The trial court granted several continuances to facilitate the parties’ plea negotiations. Eventually, Meredith pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 77ff. The district court sentenced Meredith to 168 months’ imprisonment and imposed approximately $6.8 million in restitution. In exchange for Meredith’s plea, the Government agreed to dismiss five other counts, which carried a cumulative maximum of 100 years’ confinement. As part of his agreement, Meredith waived his right to appeal. Undeterred, Meredith filed a notice of appeal after sentencing. His attorney moved to withdraw and filed a brief consistent with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). After Meredith objected, his counsel withdrew the Anders brief and litigated this action, arguing that (1) Meredith’s restitution obligation exceeds the statutory maximum and (2) the district court erred in computing Meredith’s criminal history score. Neither argument was preserved below. II. The right to appeal is statutory, not constitutional. Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 656 (1977). The right can be waived. See Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738, 742 (2019). Such waivers often stem from plea bargaining, and plea agreements are construed like contracts. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 137 (2009); United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 545 (5th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, appeal waivers require dismissal if (1) the defendant’s waiver was knowing and voluntary and (2) “the waiver applies to the circumstances at hand, based on the plain language of the plea agreement.” United States v. McKinney, 406 F.3d 744, 746 (5th Cir. 2005). We have applied this inquiry to uphold appeal waivers in a variety of contexts, including challenges to restitution, United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 756 (5th Cir. 2014), upward 2 Case: 21-50487 Document: 00516539505 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/09/2022 No. 21-50487 variances, United States v. Jacobs, 635 F.3d 778, 783 (5th Cir. 2011), and Guidelines enhancements, Bond, 414 F.3d at 543–46. Here, Meredith waived his right to appeal “on any ground,” including any right he might’ve had to challenge a “monetary penalty or obligation.” Before his plea …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals