United States v. Hugh Dyson, 707 F. App'x 180

Hugh Monroe Dyson pleaded guilty to mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 pursuant to a plea agreement.
The district court sentenced Dyson to 48 months’ imprisonment within the Sentencing Guidelines range and ordered restitution.
Dyson’s counsel filed an Anders brief asserting no meritorious appeal but questioning substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Dyson filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging Guidelines calculation, restitution, and alleging prosecutorial misconduct.
The Government moved to dismiss the appeal based on an appeal-waiver in the plea agreement; the waiver preserved only challenges to an above-Guidelines sentence and claims of ineffective assistance or prosecutorial misconduct.
The Fourth Circuit reviewed the waiver’s validity, considered the limited preserved claims, found no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct, granted the Government’s motion in part, dismissed waived claims, and affirmed the remainder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of appeal waiver	Dyson contends some issues (e.g., Guidelines, restitution) should be reviewable	Government argues waiver is valid and bars review of these claims	Waiver was knowing and voluntary; those claims fall within waiver and are dismissed
Scope of preserved claims	Dyson seeks review of Guidelines calculation and restitution	Government says plea preserved only challenges to above-Guidelines sentence and claims of ineffective assistance or prosecutorial misconduct	Challenges to sentence and restitution are within the waiver and thus not reviewable
Prosecutorial misconduct claim	Dyson alleges arbitrary, capricious, or improper motives by the Government	Government denies misconduct and invokes waiver except for preserved claim	Court reviewed record and found no evidence supporting prosecutorial misconduct; claim rejected
Counsel’s Anders brief adequacy / appellate review	Counsel submitted Anders brief raising sentence reasonableness; Dyson filed pro se supplement	Government moved to enforce waiver and dismiss appeal where applicable	Under Anders, court reviewed record, found no unwaived meritorious issues, dismissed waived claims, affirmed judgment on remaining issues

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (requires counsel to file brief identifying any non-frivolous issues when seeking to withdraw)
United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522 (4th Cir. 2013) (standards for enforcing appellate waivers and reviewing validity)
United States v. Blick, 408 F.3d 162 (4th Cir. 2005) (totality-of-circumstances test for knowing and intelligent waiver)