
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn LESTER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4582.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 28, 2002.
    Decided March 20, 2002.
    Carl J. Roncaglione, Jr., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States Attorney, Samuel D. Marsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Shawn Lester pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to one count of aiding and abetting the possession with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999 & Supp.2001); 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994). His 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). Counsel states that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Although informed of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Lester has not done so.

Lester was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Because Lester’s sentence was below the properly calculated sentencing guidelines’ maximum range and less than the statutory maximum sentence, it is not reviewable. United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir.1990). In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have examined the entire record in this case, and we find no meritorious issues for appeal.

For these reasons, we affirm Lester’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.  