
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tom TOLLISON, a/k/a Thomas C. Tollison, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-4440.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 21, 2006.
    Decided: Dec. 29, 2006.
    David B. Betts, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    
      Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Tom Tollison appeals his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing methamphetamine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Tollison’s attorney on appeal has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising as a potential issue whether the district court complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Tollison’s guilty plea. Tollison was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Counsel raises the issue of whether the district court fully complied with Rule 11, but identifies no error in the Rule 11 proceeding and concludes that there was full compliance with the Rule. After a thorough review of the record, we similarly find that the district court complied with the requirements of Rule 11.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Tollison’s conviction and sentence. This court requires 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 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.  