Texas Case Summaries
Federal Enforcement »

United States v. West — Fifth Circuit deferred the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal

Reported / Citable

Case
United States of America v. Kyle Lamar West
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Judge
Leslie H. Southwick (George W. Bush, 2007); Stephen A. Higginson (Barack Obama, 2011); Andrew S. Oldham (Donald Trump, 2018)
Date Decided
August 27, 2026
Docket No.
25-11227
Topics
Criminal Appeals, Appeal Waivers, Restitution
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Kyle Lamar West pleaded guilty to crimes involving the sexual assault of children and the production of child pornography. His plea agreement included an appeal waiver. In an earlier appeal, the Fifth Circuit remanded for further restitution proceedings.

On limited remand, the district court held a restitution hearing and ordered West to pay $372,200 to a child victim, substantially increasing the prior $6,000 award. West appealed again, and the government filed an opposed motion to dismiss the appeal, along with an alternative request for additional time to file its brief if dismissal was denied.

The Court’s Holding

In a published per curiam order, the Fifth Circuit carried the government’s motion to dismiss with the case, postponing a ruling on that motion rather than deciding whether West’s appeal waiver required dismissal.

The court also granted the government’s alternative request for 30 days from any denial of the dismissal motion to file its appellee brief. The order itself supplied no substantive rationale and did not decide the appeal’s merits or the enforceability of the waiver.

Key Takeaways

  • The Fifth Circuit deferred its ruling on the government’s motion to dismiss until consideration of the case.
  • The order did not decide whether West’s appeal waiver bars his challenge to the revised restitution award.
  • Judge Higginson separately discussed appeal-waiver doctrine and the Supreme Court’s decision in Hunter, while Judge Oldham dissented and argued that the waiver should be enforced; those views were not holdings of the per curiam order.

Why It Matters

The order keeps West’s second appeal pending without resolving the government’s waiver argument. Its immediate procedural effect is limited: dismissal remains undecided, and the government receives additional briefing time if its motion is denied.

The separate opinions reveal disagreement over appeal waivers and the prolonged appellate proceedings, but attorneys should not treat either judge’s reasoning as the panel’s holding.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top