United States v. Carneal, No. 23-1627 (8th Cir. 2024)
Annotate this CaseThe case involves Alexzander Michael Carneal, who pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of child pornography and was ordered to pay restitution to twenty-one identified victims. Carneal appealed the restitution order, arguing that the government's request for restitution was untimely and breached his plea agreement, which stated that the government may seek mandatory restitution within 60 days of discovering new losses. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, however, disagreed with Carneal's interpretation of the plea agreement. The court held that the government's request for restitution was not untimely, as it did not involve "new" or "further" losses that were discovered after the plea agreement, but rather the original losses identified before the sentencing. The court further held that the plea agreement was not breached, and that Carneal's waiver of his right to appeal any restitution order associated with his sentence was valid and enforceable. As such, the court dismissed Carneal's appeal of the restitution order.
Court Description: [Kelly, Author, with Benton and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. Under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec 3664(d)(5), the government did not breach the plea agreement by asking defendant to enter into a stipulation as to restitution because the stipulation sought only the resolution of the victims' original and only losses and not some new loss; because the government did not breach the plea agreement, defendant's appeal waiver applies to his attempt to appeal the restitution order.
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.