
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Clarence Rondell TISDALE, a/k/a Gary Olson, a/k/a Derek Cory Coakley, a/k/a Donavan Tyrell Pryor, a/k/a Samuel Leon Winston, a/k/a James Jackson, a/k/a Derek O. Oakley, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4047.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 6, 2003.
    Decided Dec. 1, 2003.
    Diedreich P. Von Lehe, III, Diedreich P. Von Lehe, III, P.A., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Mary Gordon Baker, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Clarence Tisdale seeks to appeal his sentence of thirty-six months’ imprisonment imposed following his guilty plea pursuant to a written plea agreement to uttering and possessing counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 513 (2000). Tisdale’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging one sentencing issue: whether the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Tisdale within the appropriate guidelines range. Counsel stated that, in his view, this issue is not a meritorious ground for appeal. Though notified of his right to do so, Tisdale has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. After reviewing the calculation of Tisdale’s sentence and the record on appeal, we find no error and affirm.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 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  