The Supreme Court decided on Oct. 10 to consider whether a Texas man may challenge his sentence for fraud even though he waived his right to appeal in a plea agreement with prosecutors.

Munson P. Hunter III was convicted in federal district court in Texas in February 2024 of aiding and abetting wire fraud. He was later sentenced to four years and three months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release and restitution of $235,438.

Hunter signed a plea agreement that stated he was voluntarily waiving the right to appeal except to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel or on collateral review. Collateral review refers to a legal proceeding challenging a court ruling outside the standard appeal process.

At the May 2024 sentencing hearing, Hunter objected to a proposed special condition of supervised release stipulating that he “must take all mental health medications that are prescribed by [his] treating physician,” according to Hunter’s April 2025 petition.

Hunter suffers from anxiety and depression, according to a pre-sentencing report.

He told the court at that time that he didn’t drink, use drugs, or “even curse,” the petition stated.

“I don’t want to have to be forced to medicate,” he said.

The court imposed the medication requirement, advising Hunter that he had a right to appeal, according to the petition.

After advising Hunter of his right to appeal, the court asked the attorneys if they “[wished] to say anything else.” The prosecutor replied, saying, “Your Honor, I believe—well, no. I—no.”

Hunter appealed the medication order in the sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The petition said Hunter argued that the order “infringes on [his] fundamental due process liberty interest in being free of unwanted mental health medication.”

He said that the appeal waiver did not take away his constitutional claim, or in the alternative, that the sentencing judge’s assurance that he had a right to appeal, “combined with the government’s acquiescence, should void the appeal waiver.”

The Fifth Circuit threw out the case in December 2024, saying his appeal was precluded by the appeal waiver that he previously signed.

“The district court’s statement at the sentencing hearing that Hunter had a right to appeal did not impact the validity of the appeal waiver,” the circuit court stated.

Hunter’s attorneys said in his petition that the Supreme Court should take up the case to resolve disagreements among the federal courts of appeals when defendants contest sentences despite signing appeal waivers.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed a brief in August urging the high court not to take up the case.

Sauer said that between 2013 and 2023, Hunter used fraudulently acquired Social Security numbers to open 14 bank accounts, obtain at least 18 credit cards, and file for loans from the Small Business Administration. These fraudulent acts ended up costing others almost $500,000, according to the brief.

Hunter agrees that the wording of the waiver he signed bars an appeal, so he argues that that provision of the plea agreement is not enforceable, according to the brief.

The brief stated that the Fifth Circuit “correctly rejected that contention, and its decision does not meaningfully conflict with any decision of this Court or another court of appeals.”

The Supreme Court should deny Hunter’s petition because it has repeatedly declined to take up cases that involve similar issues, the brief said.

Oral argument in the case has not yet been scheduled.

This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Oct. 13, 2025, in The Epoch Times.