In the 1998 case of Manuel DeJesus Peguero v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's right to appeal is not violated if they are not informed about their right to file an appeal when it would have been a frivolous one. The petitioner, Manuel DeJesus Peguero, was convicted for drug trafficking and sentenced without being informed by his counsel or court about his right to appeal as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(a)(2). However, he had signed an agreement waiving this very same right in exchange for concessions from the prosecution during plea bargaining. The Supreme Court held that even though there was a violation of Rule 32(a)(2), no relief could be granted because Mr. Peguero failed to show any prejudice resulting from this error since he already knew about his appellate rights due to prior convictions and waived them knowingly and voluntarily.

In the dissenting opinion for Manuel Dejesus Peguero v. United States, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with Rule 32 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and its purpose. He believed that a defendant should be informed about their right to appeal regardless if they knew it beforehand or not, as this is an essential part of due process in sentencing hearings. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on harmless error analysis application in cases where defendants were uninformed about their appellate rights by district courts during sentencing. According to him, such errors are structural and affect fundamental fairness thus cannot be considered harmless under any circumstances.