
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Cornelius MCDONALD, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 08-5063.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 20, 2009.
    Decided: Sept. 3, 2009.
    
      Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Claude Jendron, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Cornelius McDonald pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2), (e) (2006), and was sentenced to 180 months in prison. McDonald timely appealed.

Counsel for McDonald filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether McDonald was competent to enter his guilty plea. McDonald was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

In the absence of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea in the district court, we review for plain error the adequacy of the guilty plea proceeding under Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir.2002). Our examination of the record shows that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11. McDonald’s plea was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered, and supported by a factual basis. We therefore find no error.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform McDonald, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If McDonald 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 McDonald.

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.  