
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sahara SIMON, a/k/a Soukee, a/k/a Juliet, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4636.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 25, 2002.
    Decided March 19, 2002.
    Carl J. Roncaglione, Jr., Charleston, West Vmginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Sahara Simon appeals her conviction and the sentence imposed by the district court following her guilty plea to distribution of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999). Counsel has.filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests on Simon’s behalf that the district court erred in determining her sentence. Simon has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, although she was informed of her right to do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Simon contends the district court erred in sentencing her to thirty-seven months of imprisonment. However, because Simon’s sentence was within the properly calculated sentencing guidelines range and less than the statutory maximum sentence, it is not reviewable. See United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir.1990).

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm Simon’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  