Clarifying Anders Review Standards and Restitution Obligations in CSAM Plea Agreements

Introduction

United States v. Luke Shager (3d Cir. May 1, 2025) is an appeal from a 262-month sentence and $27,000 restitution award imposed after Shager’s guilty plea to sexual exploitation of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). The defendant admitted to creating child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and molesting a minor. His counsel filed an Anders brief—the procedure for requesting withdrawal when no non-frivolous appeal exists—and moved to withdraw. The Third Circuit granted the motion, affirmed the conviction and sentence, and in so doing reaffirmed key rules on (1) counsel’s Anders obligations, (2) plea colloquies, and (3) restitution for uncharged CSAM offenses.

Summary of the Judgment

The Third Circuit reviewed four potential grounds of appeal: the validity of Shager’s charges, the voluntariness of his plea, objections to the presentence report (PSR), and the substantive reasonableness of his sentence. Finding no arguable merit, the panel (Judge Roth for the court) granted counsel’s motion under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and affirmed. Key holdings include:

The district court had proper jurisdiction and Shager validly waived indictment in open court.
The plea colloquy complied with Rule 11—Shager knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty, including to restitution for identifiable victims of both charged and uncharged CSAM offenses.
The court properly adopted the undisputed portions of the PSR after sustaining Shager’s sole objection.
A 262-month sentence, below the 292–360-month Guidelines range, was procedurally and substantively reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Allegations of ineffective assistance and evidence suppression must be raised on collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, not on direct appeal.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Anders v. California (1967): Established procedure for counsel’s withdrawal and appellate review when no non-frivolous issues exist.
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis. (1988): Defined frivolous appeals as those lacking any basis in law or fact.
Paroline v. United States (2014): Pre-amendment limit on restitution tied to causal role; statutes have since been amended to mandate at least $3,000 per victim under § 2259(b).
United States v. Tomko (3d Cir. 2009) and Grier (3d Cir. 2007 en banc): Standards for substantive reasonableness and § 3553(a) sentencing analysis.
Rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure: Requirements for a valid plea colloquy.
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 32: Court may accept undisputed portions of the PSR as facts.
28 U.S.C. § 2255: Post-conviction relief mechanism for ineffective assistance claims.

2. Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in three parts. First, it applied the Anders framework: counsel’s brief sufficiently showed that the record was scoured and each potential issue was frivolous, permitting counsel’s withdrawal. Second, the court affirmed the plea, observing that the district judge conducted a thorough colloquy under Rule 11—confirming competence, voluntariness, knowledge of rights forfeited, and understanding of restitution obligations for both charged and dismissed CSAM counts. Third, on sentencing, the court accepted the undisputed PSR, overruled only one objection, calculated a 292–360 month Guidelines range based on offense level 40 and criminal history I, and then exercised discretion to impose 262 months after considering all § 3553(a) factors.

3. Impact

United States v. Shager reinforces the careful procedures required when counsel seeks withdrawal under Anders, underscoring that an adequate Anders brief must demonstrate both a thorough record review and why each issue would be frivolous. It also clarifies that plea agreements may validly provide for restitution stemming from uncharged CSAM conduct, so long as defendants knowingly waive indictment and understand restitution terms. Finally, it highlights that direct appeals are ill-suited for ineffective assistance and evidence suppression claims, channeling those to § 2255 collateral proceedings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Anders Brief: A document in which an attorney seeking to withdraw from representing an indigent client states that, after a diligent search of the record, there are no non-frivolous issues to appeal.
Plea Colloquy (Rule 11): A court-supervised question-and-answer session ensuring a guilty plea is knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis.
Presentence Report (PSR): A report prepared by probation officers describing the offense, defendant’s history, and recommended sentencing range under the Guidelines.
§ 3553(a) Factors: The statutory factors—such as nature of the offense, history of the defendant, deterrence, and public safety—that guide sentencing courts to impose reasonable punishment.
Frivolous Appeal: One that “lacks any basis in law or fact,” per McCoy.
Restitution under § 2259: Mandatory payment by defendants to victims of child pornography, now no less than $3,000 per identified victim, even for uncharged or dismissed CSAM offenses if agreed in plea.

Conclusion

United States v. Shager is a comprehensive reaffirmation of three key criminal procedure principles: the exacting standards for an Anders brief and appellate withdrawal, the necessity of a thorough Rule 11 plea colloquy covering all rights and restitution obligations, and the channeling of ineffective assistance claims to collateral § 2255 motions. It also confirms the enforceability of restitution provisions in CSAM plea agreements, even for dismissed counts, so long as defendants knowingly consent. This decision will guide district courts, appellate counsel, and sentencing judges in ensuring that both the rights of defendants and the interests of CSAM victims are fully respected.