United States v. Tynae K. Lester, Also Known as Gabriel Quiles, 200 F.3d 1179 (8th Cir. 2000). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Tynae K. Lester, Also Known as Gabriel Quiles, 200 F.3d 1179 (8th Cir. 2000). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Timothy Beston, Jr. (ca8, 2022-08-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Timothy Beston, Jr. (2×)
8th Cir. · 2022 · confidence medium
Defendant acknowledges and agrees that the Court will order Defendant to make restitution for all loss caused by Defendant’s conduct . . . .” The government relies on United States v. Lester, which found that a defendant’s agreement “to pay any restitution ordered by the District Court” barred his appeal because “a defendant’s agreement to pay the restitution that a district court orders is binding.” 200 F.3d 1179, 1179 (8th Cir. 2000).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Shaun Joseph Ruff
8th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Our circuit has held “a defendant’s agreement to pay the restitution that a district court orders is binding.” United States v. Lester, 200 F.3d 1179, 1179 (8th Cir. 2000).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Shaun Joseph Ruff (2×)
8th Cir. · 2005 · confidence medium
Our circuit has held "a defendant's agreement to pay the restitution that a district court orders is binding." United States v. Lester, 200 F.3d 1179, 1179 (8th Cir.2000). 8 In ordering restitution pursuant to the MVRA, a district court must order restitution in full without considering the defendant's economic circumstances.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DUC HUNG LAM
unknown court · confidence medium
See United States v. Broughton-Jones, 71 F.3d 1143, 1146-47 (4th Cir. 1995) (general waiver of right to appeal a sentence does not include a challenge to the legality of a restitution order); United States v. Ready, 82 F.3d 551, 553-60 (2d Cir. 1996) (explaining that under circumstances presented, the waiver of appeal in plea agreement did not operate as a waiver of right to appeal restitution); see also United States v. Zink, 107 F.3d 716 (9th Cir. 1997) (waiver of right to appeal sentence applied to sentence of confinement and not restitution order); but see United States v. Greger, 98 F.3d …
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Smith
5th Cir. · 2008 · signal: accord · confidence high
See United States v. Hemler, 169 Fed.Appx. 897, 898 (5th Cir.2006) (plea agreement stated that “[t]he Defendant agrees to pay restitution as determined by the Court”); United States v. Glynn, 149 Fed.Appx. 322, 323 (5th Cir.2005) (plea agreement stated that “defendant further agrees that the Court will order full restitution in an amount determined by the Court”); accord United States v. Lester, 200 F.3d 1179, 1179 (8th Cir.2000) (defendant waived his right to appeal the restitution order when his plea agreement stated that he would “pay any restitution ordered by the District Court�…
cited Cited "see" United States v. Mark Fuehrer
8th Cir. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Lester, 200 F.3d 1179, 1179 (8th Cir.2000).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Tynae K. LESTER, Also Known as Gabriel Quiles, Appellant
98-4153.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Mar 7, 2000.
200 F.3d 1179
Daniel Robert DeFoe, Blue Springs, MO, argued, for Appellant., Carla B. Oppenheimer, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO, argued (Stephen L. Hill, Jr., on the brief), for Appellee.
Beam, Loken, Arnold.
Cited by 10 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

Before Beam, Loken, and Morris Sheppard Arnold, Circuit Judges.

Lead Opinion

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge.

Tynae K. Lester appeals from an order directing him to pay restitution in the amount of $138,041.40. We decline to review Mr. Lester’s arguments because in his plea agreement with the government he specifically undertook “to pay any restitution ordered by the District Court.” We have held several times that a defendant’s agreement to pay the restitution that a district court orders is binding. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 128 F.3d 1239, 1240 (8th Cir.1997), and United States v. Marsh, 932 F.2d 710, 713 (8th Cir.1991). Such agreements are in fact specifically authorized by statute: 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3) states that “[t]he court may ... order restitution in any criminal case to the extent agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement.”

[*1180] Because Mr. Lester’s agreement bars this appeal, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Dissent

LOKEN, Circuit Judge,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. In my view, a plea agreement undertaking “to pay any restitution ordered by the District Court” is not a knowing waiver of the right to appeal an unlmvful restitution order. In this case, rejecting the government’s argument at sentencing for a lesser amount, the district court ordered Tynae Lester to pay restitution for losses caused by his conspirators before he joined the conspiracy. That order is contrary to our decision in United States v. Cain, 128 F.3d 1249, 1253 (8th Cir.1997). Accordingly, I would remand for resentencing in accordance with Cain.