Professional Documents
Culture Documents
O R D E R
The Court withdraws the opinion filed June 23, 2011, and
substitutes the attached opinion.
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4050
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RONALD WAYNE BRYANT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greenboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., District Judge. (1:09-cr-00072-WO-1)
Argued:
Decided:
language
This
case
in
restitution
involves
interpreting
clause
of
the
plea
scope
of
agreement.
the
On
order
of
misconstrued
restitution,
the
plea
arguing
agreement
that
when
district
held
court
that
the
as
to
restitution
only
in
accordance
with
our
decision.
I.
Bryant
was
indicted
on
thirteen
counts
of
making
false
For
our purposes, it is uncontested that Bryant submitted twentyseven false tax returns from 2002 until 2006.
Only thirteen of
Rule
11
plea
colloquy,
Bryant
pled
guilty
to
Following
two
of
the
all
victims
which
resulted
3
from
and
is
related
to
the
J.A. 28.
the district court further stated that you are agreeing that
the [c]ourt can order restitution for all of the offense conduct
under the indictment without regard to whether it would fall
under a dismissed count or a count to which you plead guilty.
J.A. 29 (emphasis added).
The
sentence
presentence
to
presentence
$110,325
be
twenty-one
report
including
report
also
all
calculated
to
Bryants
twenty-seven
calculated
twenty-seven
his
guidelines
months.
restitution
fraudulent
tax
The
to
be
returns.
He argued that
the plea agreement was that he would pay restitution for the
indicted charges, including those that were dismissed, but not
for any conduct outside the indictment.
of
the
restitution
provision
4
encompassed
losses
II.
We review orders of restitution for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Llamas, 599 F.3d 381, 387 (4th Cir. 2010).
The
18 U.S.C. 3663(a)(3)
language
principles.
in
the
plea
agreement,
we
apply
basic
contract
defendant
agreements.
for
Id.
imprecisions
509 F.3d
at 196
or
ambiguities
in
plea
omitted).
In Hughey v. United States, the Supreme Court held that in
the absence
courts
of
lacked
convicted
counts.
authority
495
U.S.
to
411,
order
442
restitution
(1990).
In
beyond
response,
J.A. 19
(emphasis
added).
Therefore,
the
Though they
not
result
from
the
charged
offenses.
Based
on
this
record, each unique tax return was prepared and filed separately
and did not occur as the result of another tax return being
filed.
to
extrinsic
agreement
had
mutually
interpretation
Here,
the
restitution
ambiguities.
evidence
Jordan,
district
at
the
to
manifested
509
F.3d
courts
plea
show
that
parties
their
assent
200
(citation
at
guidance
colloquy
the
to
cleared
the
up
to
to
[]
an
omitted).
defendant
any
the
on
existing
arising
from
(emphasis added).
charges
in
the
indictment.
J.A.
29
J.A. 26.
J.A. 28.
However,
clarifying
to
include
statement
the
uncharged
offenses
in
the
order
of
restitution.
Further, the government argues that related to must mean
the additional tax returns otherwise it would be superfluous
language.
Bryant
argues
that
related
to
was
meant
to
encompass legal expenses and fees for the people named on the
illegal tax returns.
that the government was the only victim in this scheme and thus
7
only
the
extraneous expenses
III.
In
conclusion,
we
find
that
the
plea
agreements
against
the
government,
find
that
it
does
not