
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quinton Rashard STEVENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-4496
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 23, 2017
    Decided: February 27, 2017
    
      James B. Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Quinton Rashard Stevenson appeals his ■within-Guidelines 40-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). On appeal, Stevenson’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that he found no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the length of Stevenson’s sentence. Stevenson filed a supplemental pro se brief claiming that his plea counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The Government has not responded to the Anders brief or the supplemental pro se brief.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Because the record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of counsel, we conclude that those claims should be raised, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2265 (2012) motion. See United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Stevenson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Stevenson 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 Stevenson.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts arid legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  