United States v. Miguel Esperanza-Vasquez, 696 F. App'x 567

Miguel Esperanza-Vasquez pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud after posing as a police officer and extorting an undocumented immigrant (victim paid over $27,000, some by wire).
Plea agreement included an appellate-waiver covering any sentence within the statutory maximum and a stipulation that loss for Guidelines purposes was $14,999 (estimated Guidelines range 0–6 months).
The PSR calculated loss at $27,190 and recommended two two-level enhancements: impersonating an officer (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)) and victim vulnerability (U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(b)), yielding a Guidelines range of 18–24 months.
District Court held an evidentiary hearing, credited the victim’s detailed ledger and testimony over Vasquez’s, found loss $27,120, applied the two enhancements, and sentenced Vasquez to 24 months imprisonment and restitution of $27,120.
Vasquez filed a notice of appeal; counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, arguing no non-frivolous grounds for appeal given the appellate waiver.
The Third Circuit reviewed whether counsel complied with Anders and whether the appellate waiver is enforceable or causes a miscarriage of justice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel complied with Anders requirements	Government: not applicable; court must review counsel’s Anders brief adequacy	Vasquez (via counsel): Anders brief shows no non-frivolous issues	Anders brief adequate: counsel examined record and explained frivolity; independent review finds no non-frivolous issues
Whether appellate waiver bars this appeal	Government: waiver covers any challenge to sentence within statutory maximum	Vasquez: challenge to sentence and Guidelines calculations should proceed despite waiver	Waiver valid and enforceable: covers these issues and was knowing and voluntary
Whether enforcement of waiver would be a miscarriage of justice	—	Vasquez: District Court’s divergent fact-finding (loss, enhancements) makes appeal necessary	No miscarriage: court properly exercised discretion, findings amply supported by evidence and law
Whether ineffective-assistance claim is cognizable on direct appeal	Vasquez: raised ineffective assistance as possible basis	Government: such claims generally belong on collateral review	Court declines to reach ineffectiveness on direct appeal; notes such claims are usually for collateral review unless exceptional

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (standard for counsel seeking to withdraw when no non-frivolous appeal exists)
Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988) (appellate court must conduct independent review when counsel files an Anders brief)
United States v. Corso, 549 F.3d 921 (3d Cir. 2008) (interpreting scope and enforcement of appellate waivers)
United States v. Khattak, 273 F.3d 557 (3d Cir. 2001) (requirements for knowing and voluntary appellate waivers; miscarriage of justice standard)
United States v. Maurer, 639 F.3d 72 (3d Cir. 2011) (sentencing court not bound by plea agreement stipulations and may make independent fact findings)
United States v. Iannone, 184 F.3d 214 (3d Cir. 1999) (application of vulnerable-victim enhancement)
United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (3d Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing reasonableness of sentence)