United States v. Romel Murphy ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                 United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 21-3781
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Romel Murphy
    Defendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Iowa - Cedar Rapids
    ____________
    Submitted: October 17, 2022
    Filed: January 17, 2023
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SMITH, Chief Judge, BENTON and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Romel C. Murphy pled guilty to one count of wire fraud, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1343
    , pursuant to a plea agreement. The agreement required him to make
    restitution under 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 3663
     and 3663A. He appeals, objecting to the
    restitution amount. 1 Having jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , this court affirms.
    Murphy defrauded clients by soliciting funds for music performances by
    famous artists, but then keeping the funds for himself. His plea agreement required
    paying the “full amount of the victims’ losses,” with specific amounts to be
    “investigated during the course of preparation of the presentence investigation
    report.” Murphy objected to the loss amount in the draft PSR, noting that the parties
    would attempt to resolve the disagreement before sentencing. The final PSR
    recommended that Murphy pay total losses of $410,582.
    At sentencing, the district court initially said that the total restitution was
    $411,908.23. It immediately corrected the number to $410,908.23. Relying on an
    email from the government (copied to Murphy, but not in the record), the court read
    an itemized list of the amounts payable, naming each victim. The court again said
    the total was $410,908.23. But the itemized amounts actually totaled $414,433.23.
    Later during the sentencing hearing, the court set a restitution amount at
    $414,433.23. Defense counsel agreed to the amount.
    Murphy argues that the district court clearly erred by awarding more
    restitution than the record supports, which he claims is $400,582. Murphy waived
    this argument by agreeing to the amount ordered by the district court.
    Waiver is “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or
    privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 
    304 U.S. 458
    , 464 (1938). Waiving a right or
    privilege “‘extinguish[es]’ any potential error and leaves nothing to correct” on
    appeal. United States v. Evenson, 
    864 F.3d 981
    , 983 (8th Cir. 2017), quoting United
    States v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 732-33 (1993). See United States v. Chavarria-Ortiz,
    
    828 F.3d 668
    , 671 (8th Cir. 2016) (“Waiver precludes appellate review.”). See
    1
    The Honorable C.J. Williams, United States District Judge for the Northern
    District of Iowa.
    -2-
    generally United States v. Campbell, 
    764 F.3d 874
    , 878 (8th Cir. 2014) (invited error
    where the court announces an intent to take a certain act and defense counsel
    “specifically approves” that action), quoting Matthew v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
    
    639 F.3d 857
    , 868 (8th Cir. 2011).
    Murphy stresses that he objected to the draft PSR. At sentencing, the district
    court stated its understanding that the parties had “resolved the restitution issues.”
    The district court asked defense counsel if “the Court needs to rule on any of your
    objections.” Defense counsel replied, “No, I do not believe the Court needs to rule
    on any of those objections.” Later, defense counsel did “confirm” that the total was
    $414,433.23. He added “that those were the figures that were discussed with me
    ahead of this proceeding, and I had agreed to them.” See generally United States v.
    Harrison, 
    393 F.3d 805
    , 808 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding that defendant waived his
    sentencing challenge because the judge had “repeatedly identified the issues,” and
    the defense counsel still requested the sentence). By withdrawing his objections and
    agreeing to the amount of restitution, Murphy waived that argument on appeal. See
    United States v. Burnette, 
    518 F.3d 942
    , 946 (8th Cir. 2008) (denying review of a
    defendant’s argument that the drug quantities attributed to him were incorrect
    because the defendant withdrew this objection to the PSR). See generally United
    States v. Richardson, 
    238 F.3d 837
    , 841 (7th Cir. 2001) (sentencing challenge
    waived when judge asked counsel if he objected to the sentencing enhancement, and
    he said no), cited with approval in Harrison, 
    393 F.3d at 807
    ; United States v.
    Schrimsher, 
    58 F.3d 608
    , 609-10 (11th Cir. 1995) (finding that a defendant agreed
    to pay restitution “in excess of the amount contemplated by the plea agreement” by
    admission in the sentencing hearing). Cf. United States v. Chalupnik, 
    514 F.3d 748
    ,
    751, 752, 754-55 (8th Cir. 2008) (restitution amount reviewed for clear error where
    the defendant opposed the restitution in a Sentencing Memorandum and the record
    supported no amount); United States v. Frazier, 
    651 F.3d 899
    , 906 n.1, 911 (8th Cir.
    2011) (restitution award reversed where defendant objected at sentencing to the
    amount exceeding actual loss).
    *******
    -3-
    The judgment is affirmed.
    _____________________________
    -4-