United States v. Reyes-Arzate, 91 F.4th 616

Ivan Reyes-Arzate pled guilty to an international cocaine distribution conspiracy and entered a plea agreement in the Eastern District of New York, which included a waiver of appellate rights for sentences of 293 months or less.
He was sentenced to 120 months in prison, four years of supervised release (with standard and one special condition), a $100 special assessment, and $290,000 in forfeiture.
The government moved to dismiss Reyes-Arzate’s appeal based on the plea agreement's appellate waiver; defense counsel filed an Anders brief stating there were no non-frivolous issues for appeal.
The Anders brief, however, did not address non-imprisonment aspects of the sentence (supervised release conditions, forfeiture, special assessment), which are not explicitly covered by the appeal waiver.
The Second Circuit deferred ruling on both the Anders motion (for withdrawal) and the government’s motion to dismiss, ordering supplemental briefing on whether any non-frivolous appealable issues exist regarding the non-imprisonment components of the sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of appeal waiver in plea agreement	Waiver bars appeal of sentence under 293 months; motion to dismiss appeal	Counsel argued waiver valid, no non-frivolous imprisonment appeal issues	Waiver does not unambiguously bar appeals of non-imprisonment components; counsel must brief these
Adequacy of Anders brief	Argues brief sufficient; no meritorious issues exist per waiver	Brief did not address non-imprisonment components of sentence	Anders brief insufficient; supplemental brief ordered addressing non-waived issues
Construction of appeal waivers	Waiver construed broadly per plea agreement language	Waivers should be strictly construed against government, covering only clear terms	Waivers construed narrowly; ambiguous silence on non-imprisonment terms leaves those issues appealable
Obligation of defense counsel	Not directly argued	Must address all non-waived sentence components in Anders briefing	Counsel must address all procedurally and substantively reviewable parts not covered by waiver

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (sets the standard for counsel withdrawal where appeal is frivolous)
United States v. Gomez-Perez, 215 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2000) (addresses Anders briefing in the context of appeal waivers)
United States v. Hernandez, 242 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2001) (appellate waivers in plea agreements are construed strictly against the government)
United States v. Burden, 860 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2017) (appeal waivers silent on specific aspects do not bar challenges to those aspects)
United States v. Oladimeji, 463 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2006) (appeal waivers do not unambiguously bar challenges to restitution or supervised release unless so specified)