
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre HART, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4406.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 28, 2001.
    Decided Dec. 28, 2001.
    Christopher L. Murphy, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Lee Ellis Berlinsky, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Andre Hart appeals his 262 month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute less than five grams of crack cocaine and three counts of distribution of less than five grams of crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1999 & Supp.2001). Hart’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the issue of whether the plea complied with Fed. R.Crim.P. 11. Hart filed a pro se brief arguing that his sentence was improperly calculated based on the drug quantity attributed to him, dangerous weapon enhancement, and his leadership role in the crime. Because our review of the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm Hart’s conviction and sentence. Specifically, we find that Hart’s guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered after a thorough hearing pursuant to Rule 11. Regarding Hart’s claim that he was improperly sentenced, we have considered Hart’s sentence under the United States Sentencing Guidelines and find no error.

As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Hart’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. Accordingly, Hart’s motion to substitute counsel is denied. 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.  