
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles E. PRICE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-5002.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 10, 2003.
    Decided July 15, 2003.
    James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Denise C. Barrett, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Michael J. Leotta, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

Charles E. Price pled guilty to bank robbery and received a fifty-five month sentence. In his plea agreement, he waived the right to appeal his sentence. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders 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 addressing alleged violation of Price’s right to a speedy trial. Price filed a pro se supplemental brief further arguing the speedy trial issue. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Price contends that pretrial delays violated his rights under the Speedy Trial Act. However, excluding the time during which pretrial motions were pending, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(1)(F), (J) (2000); United States v. Parker, 30 F.3d 542, 546-48 (4th Cir.1994), Price pled guilty well within the time constraints of the Act.

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm, and we deny Price’s motion to appoint counsel. This court requires that counsel inform the client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. Thus, we deny counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw at this time. If Price requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may renew the motion 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.  