OPINION

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). 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 *62 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. 2