UNITED STATES v. PITTS (2019)

[Unpublished]

Terry Pitts appeals a 15-year prison sentence and an order to pay $1,593.55 in restitution. He received both after pleading guilty to discharging a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii).

When he pleaded guilty, Pitts signed a plea agreement containing a term that “waive[d]” his right to appeal any restitution order. This term is enforceable, even though the district court ¹ did not discuss it with him, and requires us to disregard his challenge to the restitution award. Cf. United States v. Molzen, 382 F.3d 805, 807 (8th Cir. 2004).

We also reject Pitts’s other claims. We conclude that his sentence is substantively reasonable, see United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc), his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are premature, see United States v. Brown, 183 F.3d 740, 743 (8th Cir. 1999) (“We will consider an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal only in exceptional cases where the district court has developed a record on the ineffectiveness issue or where the result would otherwise be a plain miscarriage of justice.”), and his indictment was not constructively amended. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Honorable D.P. Marshall, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

PER CURIAM.