
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Chad Lee SHERIDAN, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-4934.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 20, 2005.
    Decided: July 5, 2005.
    Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Green-ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Chad Lee Sheridan appeals his sentence for five counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C) (2000) and one count of possession of ammunition as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), 924(e) (2000). The court sentenced Sheridan to thirty months’ imprisonment. The court also specified an identical alternative sentence of thirty months pursuant to this court’s recommendation in United States v. Hammond, 378 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.2004), opinion issued by, United States v. Hammond, 381 F.3d 316 (4th Cir.2004), cert. granted, judgment vacated,—U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1051, 160 L.Ed.2d 997 (2005). Sheridan’s attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that he has reviewed the record, researched the issues raised by Sheridan, and has found them to have no merit. In his Anders brief, Sheridan’s attorney raised several issues related to the district court’s calculation of Sheridan’s sentence. Although informed of his right to do so, Sheridan has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. Sheridan was also afforded the opportunity to address the impact of United States v. Booker,—U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), on his case in a supplemental brief, and he has not done so.

In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Sheridan’s sentence. This court requires counsel inform his client, in writing, of his 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  