United States v. Sean Fryer, 21-2411

Fryer, using the screenname “Bad Boy,” shared images/videos and admitted molesting children in online chats; unknown to him, he was communicating with law enforcement.
FBI subpoenas and logs traced the username to Fryer’s email, IP activity, and home address; Fryer was arrested and pleaded guilty to online enticement (18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)).
Fryer signed a written plea agreement and admitted its terms in a plea colloquy; the agreement included a broad appellate waiver.
The guideline range was 210–262 months, but defense obtained a downward variance and Fryer was sentenced to 144 months.
Fryer filed a late notice of appeal; appointed counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, identifying three potential issues (venue/jurisdiction, voluntariness of plea, legality of sentence) and arguing they were frivolous.
The Third Circuit independently reviewed the Anders submission, found counsel’s examination adequate, concluded Fryer’s appellate waiver was enforceable, granted withdrawal, and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Fryer’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Venue / Jurisdiction	Venue improper or jurisdiction defective for online offense	Records (email, IP, address) tie communications to Fryer’s forum; law supports venue	Frivolous; no merit
Voluntariness of guilty plea	Plea was not knowing/voluntary	Written agreement and thorough plea colloquy show plea was knowing and voluntary	Rejected; waiver and colloquy dispositive
Legality of sentence	Sentence unlawful (challenge to sentence)	Sentence is below Guidelines and not appealable under § 3742; waiver covers sentence challenges	Frivolous; not reviewable
Enforceability of appellate waiver / Anders adequacy	(Implicit) waiver unenforceable or counsel’s Anders brief insufficient	Waiver covers issues, was knowing/voluntary, and counsel ‘‘thoroughly scoured’’ the record per Anders	Counsel met Anders/L.A.R. 109.2(a); waiver enforceable; appeal dismissed

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel to withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
Simon v. Gov’t of Virgin Islands, 679 F.3d 109 (3d Cir. 2012) (standards for reviewing Anders submissions)
United States v. Langley, 52 F.4th 564 (3d Cir. 2022) (limiting review to issues raised by Anders brief when counsel complied)
United States v. Goodson, 544 F.3d 529 (3d Cir. 2008) (test for enforceability of appellate waivers)
United States v. Corso, 549 F.3d 921 (3d Cir. 2008) (limitations on appealing sentences below the guideline range)
United States v. Erwin, 765 F.3d 219 (3d Cir. 2014) (miscarriage-of-justice exception to enforcing waivers)
United States v. Coleman, 575 F.3d 316 (3d Cir. 2009) (counsel must explain why potential issues are frivolous in Anders brief)
United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 2000) (requirement that counsel ‘‘thoroughly scour’’ the record for appealable issues)
United States v. Agarwal, 24 F.4th 886 (3d Cir. 2022) (standard of review for new challenges to guilty pleas on direct appeal)