United States v. Gregory Westberry, 703 F. App'x 100

Gregory Westberry, on supervised release from a prior conviction, faced a petition alleging three violations (two arrests and one positive drug test for heroin).
He agreed to plead guilty to the drug-use violation (the second charge); the Government and defense jointly recommended 12 months imprisonment and no supervised release, while Probation urged continued supervised release.
At a Rule 11 colloquy the district court ensured Westberry understood rights, consequences, and that the court could impose a different sentence than recommended; Westberry allocuted to using heroin at a halfway house.
With parties’ consent the court proceeded to sentencing and, after considering § 3553(a) factors, imposed 12 months imprisonment plus two years supervised release (declining Westberry’s request for 24 months and no supervised release).
Westberry’s counsel filed an Anders brief seeking permission to withdraw, concluding there were no nonfrivolous appellate issues; the Third Circuit independently reviewed the record.
The Third Circuit granted counsel’s withdrawal and affirmed the district court’s judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of guilty plea (Rule 11)	Plea may have been invalid if court failed to ensure voluntariness or understanding	District court performed full Rule 11 colloquy; plea knowing and voluntary	Court held plea was valid; Rule 11 requirements satisfied
Procedural reasonableness of sentence	Sentence procedurally flawed if court failed to calculate Guidelines or consider departures or § 3553(a)	Court calculated 7–13 mo Guidelines, noted no departures, and addressed § 3553(a) factors	Court held sentence procedurally reasonable
Substantive reasonableness of sentence	Sentence (12 months + supervised release) might be substantively unreasonable given circumstances	Sentence was within Guidelines, reflected joint recommendation, and considered § 3553(a) factors	Court held sentence not substantively unreasonable
Counsel’s Anders withdrawal	Counsel’s withdrawal improper if Anders brief inadequate or record shows nonfrivolous issues	Counsel thoroughly reviewed record and identified no meritorious issues; appellate court independently reviewed	Court approved withdrawal under Anders and affirmed judgment

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (requires counsel to identify possible appellate issues before withdrawing)
United States v. Youla, 241 F.3d 296 (explains appellate review of Anders briefs in Third Circuit)
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., 486 U.S. 429 (defines frivolous appeals)
United States v. Stewart, 977 F.2d 81 (Rule 11 compliance evidences voluntary plea)
United States v. Flores-Mejia, 759 F.3d 253 (three-step framework for sentencing review)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (guided post-Booker Guidelines approach)
United States v. Grier, 475 F.3d 556 (standard for substantive-reasonableness review)
United States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558 (explains when appellate court may overturn a sentence)