United States of America v. Todd A. Dyer

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted December 2, 2024*
Decided December 2, 2024
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
AMY J. ST. EVE, Circuit Judge
NANCY L. MALDONADO, Circuit Judge
No. 23-2451
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TODD A. DYER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 19-cv-1319-PP
Pamela Pepper,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Todd Dyer pleaded guilty to participating in two separate fraud schemes in 2016.
See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343; 1957. In the first, he solicited funds from investors to purchase
profitable farmland that, in fact, was never bought. In the second, he convinced a family
to pay him a sizeable consulting fee to recover a life insurance policy that he falsely told
them had been stolen. Dyer later attempted, unsuccessfully, to withdraw his guilty
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the appeal is
frivolous. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(A).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 23-2451 Page 2
pleas. He was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment and ordered to provide
restitution to the victims of his fraud. We affirmed the judgments. See United States v.
Dyer, 892 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2018).
While serving his sentence in prison, Dyer continued to harass the victims in
both cases. In the farmland case, for instance, he threatened to sue one investor to
recoup payments he believed were owed based on profits allegedly turned by one of his
companies. In the insurance case, he demanded payments for violations of provisions of
his consulting agreements. The government sought a protective order under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1514(b) barring Dyer from continuing to persist in this harassment. The district court
held an evidentiary hearing, and the court—finding that Dyer’s suits served no
legitimate purpose and caused the victims substantial emotional distress—enjoined
Dyer from any further contact with the victims or their immediate family members for
three years. See id.
On appeal, Dyer does not develop any argument that challenges a specific ruling
of the district court. Instead, he asserts generally that the court violated § 1514(b) when
it purportedly refused to allow him to present evidence and limited his questioning of
his victims. But even a pro se litigant like Dyer must comply with the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure. See Anderson v. Hardman, 241 F.3d 544, 545 (7th Cir. 2001). He did
not substantiate his arguments, failed to cite supporting caselaw or parts of the record
on which he relies, and declined to order the transcript of the evidentiary hearing
(despite having sought and received multiple extensions to obtain it). F ED. R. A PP . P.
10(b)(1), 28(a)(8); see also Tapley v. Chambers, 840 F.3d 370, 375 (7th Cir. 2016) (need to
supply transcript); Anderson, 241 F.3d at 545 (need to cite supporting authority and
record).
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --