United States v. Webster, 628 F.3d 343

Webster pleaded guilty to distributing heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) for a January 2008 sale.
Before the plea, the government filed an Information seeking enhanced penalties under § 841(b)(1)(C) and § 851(a) based on a prior felony drug conviction.
The prior conviction arose from a Wisconsin case related to a separate heroin sale days before the federal offense.
Webster did not plead guilty in state court until November 2008, and federal sentencing occurred before state sentencing, with Webster awaiting state disposition at that time.
The district court sentenced Webster to 151 months in prison and 6 years of supervised release.
Counsel for Webster moved to withdraw under Anders; the court limited review to issues identified in counsel’s brief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the enhanced supervised-release term was valid	Webster relied on an invalid Information based on a non-final prior conviction.	The government’s Information improperly used a non-final prior conviction to trigger a higher minimum term.	Frivolous plain-error review; no reversible error found.
Whether § 851(c)(2) bars appellate review of a challenge to a prior conviction	Section 851(c)(2) waives challenges not raised in district court; otherwise plain-error review could apply.	Challenging the validity of the prior conviction should be permissible; waiver does not bar all review.	The issue is frivolous; even if not waived, plain-error review fails.
Whether the sentence is procedurally or substantively reasonable	Sentence was excessively long given the contested enhancement.	Sentence falls within guidelines range and is presumptively reasonable.	Reasonableness challenge would be frivolous.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (counsel may withdraw when appeal is frivolous)
Knox, 287 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2002) (plea waiver and voluntariness considerations in Anders context)
United States v. Lewis, 597 F.3d 1345 (7th Cir. 2010) (waiver vs. forfeiture of enhanced-sentence grounds; plain-error review)
Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994) (waiver principles for challenges to prior convictions)
Lane, 591 F.3d 921 (7th Cir. 2010) (procedural requirements for enhancement under § 851)
Graham, 317 F.3d 262 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (importance of correct statutory subsection impacting minimums)
Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) (presumptive reasonableness of within-guidelines sentences)
Pollard, 249 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2001) (potential life term for offenses under § 841(a)(1) and supervised release)
Eng, 14 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 1994) (multiple circuits’ treatment of enhancement and related grounds)
Mouling, 557 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (plain-error review and impact on fairness/integrity of proceedings)