Restitution Still Appealable (Sometimes)
Felicia Munoz was a caretaker for a retired Texas DPS trooper and his ailing wife. She and her boyfriend stole hundreds of firearms, silencers, and jewelry from the couple over the course of Munoz’s employment. Munoz eventually pleaded guilty of possession of stolen firearms. She entered a plea agreement that contained an appellate waiver that excepted a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum. The district court sentenced her to 108 months’ incarceration and ordered her to pay $75,605.97 in restitution.
The issues in the appeal were whether the appellate waiver barred Munoz from challenging the restitution award and, if not, whether the district court erred in calculating the proper amount of restitution. Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit agreed that her appellate waiver did not prevent the court from considering the merits of her appeal. But her substantive arguments failed.
The court recognized its precedents recognized several ways in which a restitution order can exceed the statutory maximum. Among other things, such an order cannot exceed the victim’s loss. The government also bears the burden to prove that the defendant’s conduct proximately caused the victim damages in the amount provided by the restitution award.
The court found Munoz’s arguments fell within the exception. First, her contesting of the district court’s finding that the firearms she stole were unique and therefore warranted the use of replacement value went to the amount of loss she had caused. In other words, if the collection was not unique, the restitution award of $75,605.97 would have exceeded the victims’ loss. Next, she argued the government had failed to prove the loss of value of eight silencers. This, too, fell within the exception because the government is required to prove proximate cause.