
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Marcus LLOYD, III, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4940.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 18, 2002.
    Decided May 9, 2002.
    John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Stacey Denise Haynes, Office Of The United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

James Marcus Lloyd appeals the district court’s amended judgment of conviction sentencing him to 18 months’ imprisonment after this court vacated the judgment of conviction and remanded for resentencing. This court held the district court erred by not imposing a two-level enhancement to the offense level for possession of a firearm in relation to a drug trafficking crime. At resentencing, the district court added the two-level enhancement and sentenced Lloyd to the low end of the sentencing guideline range. Lloyd’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), claiming there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Lloyd was informed of his opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. The Government has not filed a brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Lloyd’s term of imprisonment was within the proper sentencing guidelines range. In addition, it was less than the statutory maximum term of imprisonment. Accordingly, there is no error in Lloyd’s sentence.

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. We affirm the district court’s amended judgment of conviction. 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.  