
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sammie Lamont McCOLLOUGH, a/k/a Mont, a/k/a Sam, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sammie Lamont McCollough, a/k/a Mont, a/k/a Sam, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 01-4453, 01-4454.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2002.
    Decided Jan. 30, 2002.
    
      John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Sammie Lamont McCollough pled guilty to one count of bank robbery and one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) & (d) (West 2000). He was sentenced to 160 months on each count, to run concurrently. Counsel for McCollough has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising two issues on appeal but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. McCollough was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has failed to do so.

McCollough seeks review of his guilty plea hearing for compliance with Fed. R. Crim P. 11. McCollough pled guilty to both charges before a magistrate judge. McCollough signed a written waiver of his right to have his plea accepted by the district court and verbally affirmed that waiver at his Rule 11 hearing. Our review of the relevant hearing transcripts discloses that the court complied with Rule 11.

McCollough also sought review of his sentence. The sentence was imposed within the sentencing guideline range as determined in the Presentence Report, to which no objections were filed. A review of the Presentence Report and the sentencing hearing did not reveal an inappropriate sentence imposed by the district court. Finally, the sentence was within the range prescribed by the statute of conviction.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm McCollough’s conviction and sentence. 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 dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.  