
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Damon McCROREY, a/k/a Rod, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4076.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2000.
    Decided Jan. 10, 2001.
    Michael L. Brown, Jr., Rock Hill, SC, for appellant. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Roderick Damon McCrorey pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base. The district court imposed a 145-month sentence. Following the filing of a timely notice of appeal, McCrorey’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). In his brief, counsel states that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raises the following issues: whether the district court (1) complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 at the plea hearing, and (2) sentenced McCrorey in contravention of law or the Sentencing Guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not err during the plea hearing, United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561, 564 n. 2 (4th Cir. 1999), or in sentencing. See United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989).

We have examined the entire record in this case including the issues raised in McCrorey’s pro se supplemental brief, in accordance with the requirements of An-ders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm McCro-rey’s sentence and 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 grant McCrorey’s motion to decon-solidate his appeal from United States v. Brice, 1 Fed.Appx. 186 (4th Cir.2001). 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.

ORDER

The court amends its opinion filed January 10, 2001, as follows:

On the cover sheet, section 6 — the status line is corrected to read “Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.”  