
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francisco GARCIA, a/k/a Juan, a/k/a Alexandar Estrada, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4591.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 7, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 25, 2003.
    John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Garcia appeals his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea to two counts of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of less than 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), one count of possession with intent to distribute and distribution of five grams or more of cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of using, carrying and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(ii) (2000). He was sentenced to sixty months in prison for the drug offenses, a consecutive eighty-four month term for the firearms conviction, and five years of supervised release. We affirm.

Garcia’s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In the Anders brief, Garcia’s counsel briefed two issues, both of which counsel ultimately concluded were not meritorious: whether the district court fully complied with the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11, and whether the district court erred in applying the sentencing guidelines. Garcia was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but failed to do so.

We review violations of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-27 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, ■ — ■ U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 200, 154 L.Ed.2d 169 (2002). Under this standard, we exercise our discretion only to correct errors that are plain, material, or affecting substantial rights, and which seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 524 (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)). We have reviewed the record and find no error.

We review the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines for clear error as to factual findings; we review legal determinations de novo. United States v. Blake, 81 F.3d 498, 503 (4th Cir.1996). We have reviewed the district court’s application of the guidelines and find no error.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Garcia’s conviction and sentence. We require that 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 that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such 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.  