United States v. Patricia Webb ( 2018 )

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 17-2109
___________________________
United States of America
lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
v.
Patricia Webb, also known as Patricia Holmes
lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
____________
Submitted: December 7, 2018
Filed: December 11, 2018
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, KELLY, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Patricia Webb appeals after she pled guilty to wire fraud and aggravated
identity theft pursuant to a plea agreement that contained an appeal waiver. The
district court1 varied upward to sentence her to 72 months in prison on the wire-fraud
1
The Honorable Roseann A. Ketchmark, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Missouri.
counts, plus a mandatory 24-month consecutive prison term on the identity-theft
count. It also ordered forfeiture and restitution. Webb now argues that the appeal
waiver should not be enforced, that her sentence is unreasonable, and that the value
of assets the government seized from her in forfeiture proceedings should have offset
the restitution award. We conclude that the appeal waiver is valid and enforceable
and that Webb’s sentencing arguments fall within its scope. See United States v.
Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010) (reviewing the validity and applicability of
an appeal waiver de novo); United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.
2003) (en banc) (discussing the enforcement of appeal waivers). During the
pendency of this appeal, the district court clerk credited the liquidated value of the
seized assets against the amount Webb owes in restitution, rendering her restitution
argument moot. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996) (per curiam)
(explaining that an appeal should be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an
intervening event, the appellate court cannot grant the appellant any effectual relief).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied without
prejudice.
______________________________
-2-