Case ID: f-appx_57/html/0061-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BECKER, Chief Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, v. Guy E. MOSIER, Appellant.
    No. 01-3809.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Decided Jan. 27, 2003.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) Feb. 25, 2003.
    Filed Feb. 27, 2003.
    Before BECKER, Chief Judge, SCIRICA, Circuit Judge, and SHADUR, District Judge.
    
    
      
       Honorable Milton I. Shadur, Senior United States District Judge, Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.
    
   OPINION

BECKER, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal by defendant Guy Mo-sier from the judgment of the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered pursuant to a bargained-for guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Mosier’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating inter alia:

After a complete and careful review of the entire record in this matter it is clear that there are no meritorious issues present and that this appeal is wholly frivolous.

Our jurisprudence requires that counsel in an Anders situation adequately attempt to uncover the best arguments for his or her client. See United States v. Marvin, 211 F.3d 778 (3d Cir.1999). Counsel’s brief represents that he has referred to those portions of the record that might arguably support the appeal and direct the Court to the relevant law. Having read the record, we are satisfied that counsel has fulfilled his Anders obligations, and agree with his estimate of the appeal. Counsel’s brief addressed two questions: (1) was Mosier’s guilty plea entered knowingly and voluntarily and in conformity with the law; and (2) was the sentence imposed legal. We have reviewed the comprehensive sentencing colloquy including the comprehensive advice of rights and accompanying waivers offered, as well as extensive description of the factual basis for the plea, including Mosier’s admissions that he was guilty as charged. We find no basis for appeal with respect to voluntariness of the plea. Neither do we discern any problems with the sentence, or any other possible grounds for appeal. We will therefore grant counsel’s request to withdraw, and will affirm the judgment on the merits. 
      
      . Mosier filed his appeal pro se, and we afforded him an opportunity to file a pro se brief. Mosier filed a motion for an extension of time, which we granted on July 18, 2002, extending this time for filed of a brief to August 26, 2002. Mosier did not file a brief.
     
      
      . We also note our view that, because the issues presented in the appeal lack legal merit, they do not require the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. Third Cir. LAR 109.2(b)(2000).