
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dejuan WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4644.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 29, 2008.
    Decided March 13, 2003.
    W. Michael Frazier, Frazier & Oxley, L.C., Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Dejuan Devel Williams appeals his conviction and 106-month sentence after pleading guilty without a plea agreement to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (2000) and unlawful possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000). 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 asserting the district court failed to meet the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure at the plea hearing and failed to correctly calculate Williams’ sentence. Although notified by both this court and his attorney of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Williams failed to file such a brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Williams contends his Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 plea hearing was inadequate. As Williams raised no objection to the Rule 11 proceeding below, we review this claim for plain error. United States v. General, 278 F.3d 389, 394 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 950, 122 S.Ct. 2643, 153 L.Ed.2d 821 (2002). In light of the district court’s thorough plea colloquy, we find Williams was fully aware of his rights and the consequences of his plea and that his plea was knowing and voluntary. We find the district court complied with the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Williams’ plea.

Williams also contends the district court erred in calculating his sentencing guidelines range. As Williams did not object at sentencing, we review for plain error. United States v. Ford, 88 F.3d 1350, 1355 (4th Cir.1996). The record demonstrates Williams’ sentence was properly calculated in accordance with the sentencing guidelines.

After this Court’s briefing deadline lapsed and nearly three months after Williams was notified by his attorney and this court of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Williams filed a “Motion to Amended [sic] and Supplemental Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 15(d)” in which he seeks a thirty day extension to file a supplemental brief. Because the briefing deadline has passed and because Williams provides no explanation why an extension is warranted after he received proper notification of that deadline, we deny his motion.

We have reviewed the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. 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. 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.  