United States v. Rosa

In United States v. Rosa, No. 23-10328 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2024) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit held that the defendant’s waiver of appeal barred him from challenging the payment schedule the district court had imposed as part of his sentence.

Procedural Background: At sentencing, the court ordered Rosa to pay a $5,000 special assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 2259A and a $5,000 special assessment under 18 U.S.C. § 3014. It ordered those payments to be paid simultaneously when Rosa served his term of supervised release (after completing his 240-month prison sentence). On appeal, Rosa argued that it was error to order simultaneous instead of sequential payment.

When he pled guilty in the district court, Rosa had signed a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to appeal his “sentence, fine and order of restitution or forfeiture.” But, in Rosa’s view, that did not cover his appellate challenge to special assessments, which were not named in his appeal waiver.

Issue: Rosa contended that in the phrase, “sentence, fine and order of restitution or forfeiture.” the word “sentence” should be interpreted to exclude monetary penalties because it was followed by a three-item list of specific monetary penalties. In his view, a broader definition of “sentence” would render those three terms meaningless.

Holding: The Fifth Circuit rejected Rosa’s argument and found that his appeal waiver applied, so it dismissed his appeal without reaching its merits.

The court reached that outcome after considering United States v. Madrid, 978 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2020), in which it had interpreted an appeal waiver by relying on the parties’ intent at the time they executed the plea agreement. Here, the court said, “Rosa has clearly waived his right to appeal his sentence, and that includes the assessments and their payment schedule.”

The court rejected Rosa’s close textual reading of the appeal waiver, finding that, “[i]f anything, the more specific language in the appeal waiver cuts against his position because that language sweeps in the assessments whether they are part of the ‘sentence,’ or are ‘fines’ or ‘restitution.’” And at sentencing, the assessments were “part of Rosa’s sentence.”