The opinion
Case: 21-51025 Document: 00516402006 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 21, 2022
No. 21-51025 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Fredrick Brown,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:19-CR-524-2
Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Fredrick Brown pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and
conspiracy to commit money laundering. He now appeals, challenging the
district court’s $2,331,639 restitution order, arguing that it exceeds the
statutorily authorized amount. Such a challenge is not barred by Brown’s
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-51025 Document: 00516402006 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2022
No. 21-51025
appeal waiver. See United States v. Kim, 988 F.3d 803, 811 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 142 S. Ct. 225 (2021).
The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 (MVRA) limits the
amount of restitution to the losses resulting directly and proximately from
the offense of conviction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2). Brown argues that
the Government did not satisfy its burden to prove the amount of loss
proximately caused to the victims of the offense as required by the MVRA,
resulting in an illegal sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(e); Kim, 988 F.3d at
811.
The “Restitution Reference Sheet” incorporated by reference into
the revised presentence report (PSR) outlined the amount of pecuniary loss
suffered by specific victims as a result of Brown’s offense, and the total
amount of those losses corresponds precisely to the district court’s total
restitution award. That information is considered reliable, see United States
v. Harris, 702 F.3d 226, 230 (5th Cir. 2012), and the Government cited it in
support of the restitution amount at sentencing. Brown presented no
argument or evidence to rebut the reliability or accuracy of the PSR facts
relating to restitution, and the district court was free to adopt them. See
United States v. Dickerson, 909 F.3d 118, 129-30 (5th Cir. 2018); Harris, 702
F.3d at 230. In light of the foregoing, the restitution award did not illegally
exceed the amount authorized under the MVRA, see § 3663A(a)(2); United
States v. Sharma, 703 F.3d 318, 322-23 (5th Cir. 2012), and the judgment of
the district court is AFFIRMED.
2