How Appellate Waivers Undermine Criminal Defendants’ Rights

How Appellate Waivers Undermine Criminal Defendants’ Rights: A Case Study from U.S. v. Chadwick Strong, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals (filed 2/27/25). 

Appellate waivers are a standard feature in federal plea agreements, but their widespread use almost always leads to the detriment of criminal defendants by restricting their ability to challenge unjust sentences or trial errors. In United States v. Chadwick Strong, the Fourth Circuit’s decision to disregard an untimely asserted appellate waiver provided a rare opportunity for the defendant to receive relief—an outcome that would have been foreclosed had the Government invoked the waiver properly. This case underscores how appellate waivers serve to insulate questionable judicial decisions from scrutiny, reinforcing the imbalance of power in plea bargaining.

Case Background: A Missed Opportunity for the Government

Chadwick Strong pleaded guilty to a controlled substance conspiracy and fentanyl distribution. His plea agreement contained an appellate waiver, which would have barred nearly all challenges to his sentence. However, when his attorney filed an Anders brief, raising a sentencing issue, the Government failed to invoke the appellate waiver in response. This procedural misstep proved critical: because the Government did not timely assert the waiver, the Fourth Circuit ruled that it had forfeited the ability to enforce it.

The consequences of this ruling were significant. Normally, an appellate waiver would have blocked Strong’s challenge to the sentencing enhancement for knowingly misrepresenting fentanyl. Instead, the court considered his claim on the merits and found that the sentencing enhancement was improper, vacating his sentence and remanding for resentencing.  Strong is serving a 214-month sentence, so this is a significant grant of relief. 

The Court’s Analysis: A Rare Check on Government Overreach

The Government later attempted to rectify its oversight by filing a motion to dismiss based on the appellate waiver. Citing United States v. Ashford, the Government argued that it was not required to invoke the waiver at the Anders stage and could assert it in its first substantive brief. However, the Fourth Circuit distinguished Ashford on a crucial point: unlike in Ashford, where the Anders brief only raised claims outside the waiver’s scope, Strong’s Anders brief explicitly challenged his sentencing—an issue that should have prompted the Government to invoke the waiver immediately.

Because the Government failed to act in a timely manner, the court declined to revisit its ruling and proceeded to review Strong’s claims. This procedural lapse directly benefited the defendant, allowing the court to identify and correct a sentencing error that would have otherwise gone unchallenged.

Why This Case Highlights the Harm of Appellate Waivers

This case illustrates a fundamental problem with appellate waivers: they shield erroneous or unfair sentencing decisions from appellate review. Had the Government properly invoked the waiver in response to Strong’s Anders brief, his challenge would have been dismissed outright—regardless of whether his sentence was based on a flawed enhancement. The only reason Strong secured relief was because of the Government’s forfeiture, not because of a fair and transparent process.

This raises troubling implications for the criminal justice system:

• Appellate Waivers Disproportionately Harm Defendants

1. 1. • In the vast majority of cases, appellate waivers function as a one-sided mechanism that benefits the prosecution by preemptively foreclosing challenges to sentencing errors.
      • Defendants, often with limited bargaining power, are pressured to accept waivers without fully understanding the rights they are relinquishing.

• Errors Go Uncorrected

1. 1. • Strong’s case demonstrates that sentencing mistakes happen, and when they do, appellate review is essential for correction.
      • If the waiver had been enforced, Strong’s excessive sentence would have remained intact, illustrating how waivers prevent courts from remedying unfair outcomes.

• Procedural Technicalities Determine Justice

1. • The fact that Strong received relief due to a procedural mistake by the Government—rather than the substantive merits of his claim—exposes how arbitrary appellate waiver enforcement can be.
   • This case was an exception; in most instances, courts rigidly enforce waivers, denying defendants the opportunity to challenge their sentences even in cases of clear error.

Conclusion: A Rare Victory, but a Flawed System Remains

The Fourth Circuit’s decision in U.S. v. Strong inadvertently highlights the dangers of appellate waivers by demonstrating how they typically prevent courts from correcting injustices. Strong was fortunate—the Government’s failure to timely invoke the waiver gave him the rare opportunity to challenge an improper sentence.  Strong is now entitled to a resentencing. But for countless other defendants, appellate waivers ensure that judicial errors remain unexamined and uncorrected.

Rather than serving justice, appellate waivers function as a tool of prosecutorial leverage, allowing the Government to insulate sentencing decisions from scrutiny. U.S. v. Strong is a compelling example of why courts should reconsider their rigid enforcement of these waivers and restore defendants’ access to meaningful appellate review.