
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlayne Annette CRAWFORD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. KM960.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 26, 2011.
    Decided: June 10, 2011.
    Steven T. Meier, Meier Law, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Charlayne Annette Crawford pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of making a false statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (2006). The district court sentenced Crawford to six months’ probation and imposed a $100 special assessment. We affirm.

On appeal, Crawford’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he states that he could find no meritorious issues for appeal. Crawford was informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but she has not done so. Counsel calls our attention to Crawford’s allegations of duress and coercion set forth in her notice of appeal filed in the district court. We find no merit in these conclusory allegations, especially in light of Crawford’s sworn testimony to the contrary.

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

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.  