NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 12-3287

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

GREGORY A. LOCKWOOD,

 Appellant

_____________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Crim. No. 4:11-cr-00307)

District Judge: Honorable Yvette Kane

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

March 21, 2013

____________

Before: FUENTES, CHAGARES and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: May 2, 2013)

____________

OPINION

____________

BARRY, Circuit Judge

Gregory A. Lockwood appeals his conviction and 60-month sentence of 

imprisonment for the possession of child pornography, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

2252A(5)(B). His attorney has moved to withdraw under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 
2

738 (1967). For the following reasons, we will grant the motion to withdraw and affirm 

the judgment of sentence. 

I.1

Under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), appellate counsel may request

to withdraw from further representation of the defendant if he finds the appeal “to be 

wholly frivolous.” Id. at 744. The request must be accompanied by a brief identifying 

portions of the record that could potentially support an appeal. Id. 

In addressing counsel’s request, we undertake a twofold inquiry: (1) whether 

counsel’s brief is adequate; and (2) whether an independent review of the record presents 

any nonfrivolous issues. United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296, 300 (3d Cir. 2001). With 

respect to the first inquiry:

The duties of counsel when preparing an Anders brief are (1) to satisfy the 

court that counsel has thoroughly examined the record in search of 

appealable issues, and (2) to explain why the issues are frivolous. Counsel 

need not raise and reject every possible claim. However, at a minimum, he 

or she must meet the “conscientious examination” standard . . . . 

Id. With respect to the second inquiry, we review the record to determine whether the 

appeal “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 

U.S. 429, 438 n.10 (1988). The scope of this review is guided by the adequacy of the 

 1 The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have jurisdiction 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). We exercise plenary review to 

determine whether there are any nonfrivolous issues on appeal. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 

75, 80 (1988). 

 
3

Anders brief, determined by the first inquiry. Where an Anders brief is adequate, we 

confine our scrutiny to those portions of the record identified by the Anders brief. See

Youla, 241 F.3d at 301. Where the Anders brief is inadequate, however, we broaden our 

review to portions of the record implicated in the defendant’s pro se brief, or any other 

filings that may provide “guidance concerning the issues [the defendant] wishes to raise 

on appeal.” Id. Even if an Anders brief is inadequate, we may nonetheless affirm the 

District Court without appointing new counsel if we find, after reviewing the record, that 

the “frivolousness [of the appeal] is patent.” United States v. Coleman, 575 F.3d 316, 

321 (3d Cir. 2009). 

II.

Counsel’s Anders brief identifies three potential, but frivolous, issues for appeal:

(1) the jurisdiction of the District Court; (2) the validity of the guilty plea; and (3) the 

legality of the 60-month sentence.2

 2 In his pro se brief, Lockwood asserts but one claim: ineffective assistance of counsel. 

Usually, this claim is made in a collateral proceeding, rather than on direct appeal. 

United States v. Olfano, 503 F.3d 240, 246 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. 

McLaughlin, 386 F.3d 547, 555 (3d Cir. 2004)). However, where the record is sufficient 

to allow a determination of ineffective assistance, a separate hearing is unnecessary, and 

we may address the claim on direct appeal. United States v. Headley, 923 F.2d 1079, 

1083 (3d Cir. 1991). The record is sufficient to address this claim, and we find it is 

patently without merit. There is simply no evidence that the choice of psychologist 

prejudiced Lockwood in any way. 

The brief is thorough and well-written, evidencing a 

conscientious examination of the record and the potential issues on appeal. Counsel fully 

explains why there are no nonfrivolous issues, and we have carefully examined those 
4

portions of the record identified by counsel as potentially nonfrivolous. Our independent 

review convinces us that none of these issues could possibly support an appeal, and we 

are satisfied that all the requirements of Anders have been met.

III.

We will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment of the 

District Court.