
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobby Edward LABO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-4196.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 29, 2013.
    Decided: Nov. 8, 2013.
    Joel Morris Bondurant, Jr., Bondurant Law Firm, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bobby Edward Labo pled guilty to possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(k), 924(a)(1)(B) (2006). The district court sentenced Labo to the statutory maximum sentence of sixty months in prison. On appeal, counsel for Labo filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Labo did not file a supplemental pro se brief, despite notice of his right to do so. The government elected not to file a response to the Anders brief.

In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have examined the entire record * and have found no meritorious issues. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny counsel’s request to be relieved from further representation. This court requires that counsel inform Labo in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Labo requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Labo. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       The sentencing hearing was transcribed, but that transcript was not made a part of the record on appeal. We have satisfied our obligations under Anders, however, by reviewing the transcript via the district court docket sheet.
     