United States v. Arguedas: Harmless Deficiency Doctrine for Incomplete Anders Briefs under Appeal Waivers

Introduction

United States v. Arguedas, decided April 9, 2025 by the Second Circuit, clarifies how appellate courts should handle defense‐counsel withdrawal motions under Anders v. California when plea agreements include appeal waivers. Alexander Arguedas pleaded guilty in the Southern District of New York to racketeering, narcotics conspiracy, and a firearms offense. His judge imposed a below-Guidelines 390-month prison term, five years’ supervised release, and a $300 special assessment. On appeal, defense counsel filed an Anders brief that addressed the plea and appeal waiver but omitted discussion of supervised-release conditions—which lay outside the waiver’s scope. The Second Circuit adopted a new “harmless deficiency” test, permitting counsel to withdraw despite a partial Anders‐brief omission if no non‐frivolous issues exist (or if the defendant expressly waives them after informed consultation).

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeals held that:

Anders briefs in appeal‐waiver cases must examine any sentencing components not covered by the waiver.
An Anders‐brief omission is not automatically fatal; it can be deemed “harmless” if the record shows no non-frivolous issues on unwaived components.
Alternatively, counsel may cure the deficiency by certifying that the defendant has been informed of the risks and benefits of appealing those unwaived components and has authorized forgoing them.
Applying this test, the court concluded there were no non-frivolous issues as to the mandatory, standard, and five of seven special conditions of supervised release. Two special conditions related to financial disclosure and new lines of credit, however, potentially raised arguable issues. The court thus deferred decision and ordered supplemental briefing.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) – authorizes withdrawal when counsel finds an appeal “wholly frivolous” and requires a brief identifying any arguable issues.
United States v. Reyes-Arzate, 91 F.4th 616 (2d Cir. 2024) – held Anders briefs in appeal-waiver contexts must address sentencing components outside the waiver’s scope.
United States v. Burden, 860 F.3d 45 (2d Cir. 2017) – appeal waivers silent on specific aspects do not bar challenges to those aspects.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) – prejudice arises from constructive or actual denial of counsel, underpinning harmlessness analysis.

Legal Reasoning

The court recognized that an appeal waiver extinguishes challenges within its scope but does not preclude review of unwaived sentencing elements (e.g., supervised-release conditions). When counsel’s Anders brief omits those unwaived issues, the court must determine whether:

The omission is harmless—that is, the record plainly forecloses any non-frivolous argument on the unwaived components; or
The deficiency is cured by counsel’s certification that the defendant, after discussion, authorized counsel not to pursue those issues.

The Second Circuit applied traditional plain‐error review to the unwaived supervised‐release conditions because Arguedas had notice and made no objection at sentencing. It found the mandatory, standard, and five special conditions (substance‐abuse and mental‐health treatment, searches, no gang association, supervision district) plainly related to § 3553(a) factors and free of plausible challenge. Two special conditions—financial disclosure and credit restrictions—were tied to restitution or fines not imposed, raising arguable error. The court thus ordered supplemental briefing rather than dismiss outright.

Impact

United States v. Arguedas establishes a flexible approach to Anders‐brief deficiencies in cases with appeal waivers. Future appeals will see:

Greater scrutiny of counsel’s Anders briefs to ensure any unwaived issues are discussed or affirmatively waived by the defendant.
Use of harmlessness review to avoid remands for trivial omissions, preserving appellate efficiency where records foreclose arguable error.
Clarity on when counsel must certify an informed defendant waiver of appellate review on specific sentence components.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Anders Brief: A submission by appointed counsel seeking withdrawal on the ground that the appeal is frivolous, while still identifying any arguable issues.
Appeal Waiver: A contractual provision in a plea deal where the defendant agrees not to appeal certain aspects of the sentence.
Harmlessness Review: An inquiry into whether an error—here, omission in an Anders brief—caused prejudice or left open arguable grounds for appeal.
Plain Error: Appellate standard when the defendant did not object below; requires an obvious mistake affecting substantial rights.

Conclusion

United States v. Arguedas refines the appellate withdrawal process under Anders in the wake of plea-agreement waivers. By adopting a harmless‐error framework, the Second Circuit balances the defendant’s right to counsel against the need for efficient appellate resolution. The decision ensures that counsel’s Anders briefs must either address all unwaived sentencing issues or show that no non-frivolous challenge exists—or that the defendant has knowingly foregone such challenges. This ruling will guide defense and appellate courts in navigating incomplete Anders briefs and reinforce the principle that not every omission mandates remand when a record clearly forecloses appealable error.