Case: 21-60477 Document: 00516255589 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 28, 2022
No. 21-60477
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Christopher Delaney,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:18-CR-230-2
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Christopher Delaney appeals the sentence of 276 months in prison
and the restitution order imposed following his guilty plea convictions of
three counts of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and two counts of
brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-60477 Document: 00516255589 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/28/2022
No. 21-60477
§ 924(c)(1)(A)(ii). The Government has moved to dismiss the appeal or, in
the alternative, for summary affirmance.
As the Government contends, the appeal waiver in Delaney’s plea
agreement bars his challenges to the substantive reasonableness of his
sentence and to the application of a sentencing guidelines enhancement in
calculating that sentence. United States v. Madrid, 978 F.3d 201, 205 (5th
Cir. 2020); United States v. Keele, 755 F.3d 752, 754 (5th Cir. 2014).
Delaney’s challenges to the restitution order are separately unavailing
on the merits. Delaney argues that the restitution order exceeded the
statutory maximum because the district court failed to adequately address the
restitution amount and because the Government failed to show that he
proximately caused the losses, including one victim’s injuries. These
arguments are, however, unsupported by the record. The district court
emphasized the Presentence Investigation Report’s (“PSR”) assessment
that one of Delaney’s victims suffered a “torn left meniscus and a
nondisplaced fracture of the fourth metatarsal bone in her left foot.” And
her employer’s insurer paid $43,758.79 “in worker’s compensation as a
result of [her] physical and emotional injuries[,]” according to the district
court’s recitation of the PSR. Delaney offers no reason why the district court
could not rely on this amount in assessing the restitution award. This
argument therefore fails.
The Government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The
alternative motion for summary affirmance is DENIED. This appeal is
DISMISSED.
2