
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clara McElveen COOPER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4570.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2003.
    Decided March 10, 2003.
    Wesley Locklair, Joye & Locklair, P.A., Murrells Inlet, South Carolina, for Appellant. Rose Mary Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Clara McElveen Cooper appeals her conviction and 168-month sentence after pleading guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000). Her attorney has filed a brief pursuant to An-ders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising the issue of whether the district court failed to meet the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 at the plea hearing. Although notified by both this court and her attorney of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Cooper failed to file such a brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Cooper contends her plea hearing failed to comport with Rule 11. As Cooper raised no objection to the Rule 11 proceeding below, we review this claim for plain error. United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 394 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2643, 153 L.Ed.2d 821 (2002). In light of the district court’s thorough plea colloquy, we find Cooper was fully aware of her rights and the consequences of her plea and that her plea was knowing and voluntary. We find the district court complied with the requirements of Rule 11 in accepting Cooper’s plea.

We have reviewed the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This Court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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. 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.  