Filed: Feb. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 15-60398 Document: 00513368035 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-60398 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 3, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, versus TIMOTHY WINFRED MILLER, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:15-CR-2-1 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges
Summary: Case: 15-60398 Document: 00513368035 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 15-60398 Summary Calendar United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED February 3, 2016 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee, versus TIMOTHY WINFRED MILLER, Defendant–Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:15-CR-2-1 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges...
More
Case: 15-60398 Document: 00513368035 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2016
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-60398
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 3, 2016
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY WINFRED MILLER,
Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:15-CR-2-1
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Timothy Miller appeals the sentence imposed on his conviction of
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 15-60398 Document: 00513368035 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2016
No. 15-60398
possession of materials involving sexual exploitation of minors. Specifically,
Miller challenges the restitution and the special condition of supervised release
(“SR”) prohibiting access to the internet and to computers without the permis-
sion of a probation officer.
In the plea agreement, Miller waived the right to appeal his “conviction
and sentence imposed in this case, or the manner in which that sentence was
imposed . . . on any ground whatsoever.” Miller claims, however, that the
waiver is not enforceable because he could not knowingly and intelligently
waive the right to appeal a sentence that has not yet been imposed. He asserts
that even if the waiver is enforceable, it does not apply to his challenges to the
restitution and SR. The government seeks to enforce the appeal waiver and
moves for dismissal of the appeal or, alternatively, summary affirmance.
To determine whether an appeal of a sentence is barred by an appeal
waiver, this court analyzes whether the waiver was knowing and voluntary
and whether the waiver applies to the circumstances at hand, based on the
plain language of the agreement. See United States v. Bond,
414 F.3d 542, 544
(5th Cir. 2005). For a waiver to be knowing and voluntary, the “defendant
must know that he had a right to appeal his sentence and that he was giving
up that right.” United States v. Portillo,
18 F.3d 290, 292 (5th Cir. 1994) (inter-
nal quotation marks and citation omitted). The record shows that Miller’s
waiver was knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Melancon,
972 F.2d
566, 567-68 (5th Cir. 1992).
Miller’s challenge to the condition of SR restricting access to the internet
and to computers is barred by the appeal waiver. See United States v. Higgins,
739 F.3d 733, 738–39 (5th Cir. 2014). Because the record shows that a poten-
tial restitution order was discussed at rearraignment and at sentencing, and
because the plea agreement defined “Sentence” to include restitution, the
2
Case: 15-60398 Document: 00513368035 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/03/2016
No. 15-60398
waiver bars Miller’s challenge to the amount of the restitution order. See
United States v. Keele,
755 F.3d 752, 755–56 (5th Cir. 2014).
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the appeal is
DISMISSED. The government’s alternative motion for summary affirmance
is DENIED as unnecessary.
3