Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-23-02451/USCOURTS-ca7-23-02451-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Todd A. Dyer
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

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. FED. R. APP. P. 34(a)(2)(A).

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with FED. R. APP. P. 32.1

Case: 23-2451 Document: 30 Filed: 12/02/2024 Pages: 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). FED. R. APP. 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

Case: 23-2451 Document: 30 Filed: 12/02/2024 Pages: 2