United States v. Bagley, No. 17-2382 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit enforced an appeal waiver as to a criminal history challenge and vacated a restitution award. In this case, defendant stole a car at gunpoint, killed the dog that was inside the vehicle, and caused a multi-vehicle traffic accident.
The court held that defendant's appeal waiver was valid and should be enforced as to his challenge to his criminal history score, because the record demonstrated that defendant entered into the plea agreement and the appeal waiver knowingly and voluntarily; the argument fell within the scope of the waiver; and no miscarriage of justice would result from enforcing the waiver. However, the court held that defendant's challenge to the ordered restitution fell outside the scope of the appeal waiver; the restitution amount for chiropractic care for one of the victims was not supported by evidence because it was based on an estimate, not the actual loss caused by the injury; as to restitution for the death of the dog, it was properly based on the provisions of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act addressing lost or destroyed property; and there were no other non-frivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the waiver.
Court Description: Loken, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Sentencing. Defendant's appeal waiver was valid and would be enforced as to his challenge to his criminal history score; his challenge to a restitution award falls outside the waiver. During defendant's flight in a carjacked vehicle a dog in the car was killed, and the owner of the dog sought $14,999 in restitution for the loss of the dog. The district court awarded the owner $1,000. Restitution for the loss of the dog, "Mister," was properly based on the provisions of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act addressing lost or destroyed property; the proper measure of damages is the replacement cost of the pet; the government presented no evidence on the dog's replacement cost or value, only a speculative estimate of the costs of raising Mister; as a result, the amount of restitution awarded for Mister was unsupported by the evidence and must be reversed. Judge Colloton, concurring part and dissenting in part.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.