
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leslie Lester TUCKER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4116.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 23, 2001.
    Decided Sept. 6, 2001.
    
      Henry M. Anderson, Jr., Anderson Law Firm, P.A., Florence, SC, for appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, SC, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Leslie Lester Tucker appeals his conviction and 151-month sentence after a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999). Tucker’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), raising the issue as to whether the district court properly determined at sentencing that Tucker was a career offender, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Tucker has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

Following a de novo review of the record, we find that the district court complied with all the mandates of Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Tucker’s guilty plea. United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir.1995) (providing standard). We also conclude that the district court did not err in sentencing Tucker as a career offender as he was over eighteen years old when he committed the instant felony offense, which involved a controlled substance, and he had two prior felony convictions. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2000).

In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have reviewed the record for potential error and have found none. We also find Tucker’s claims in his pro se supplemental brief without merit. Therefore, we affirm Tucker’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 this court for leave to withdraw from further 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  