
    UNITED STATES of America, v. Lamont ANDERSON a/k/a Mark Anderson Lamont Anderson, Appellant.
    No. 01-3965.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) on March 3, 2003.
    Decided May 7, 2003.
    Before: ROTH, BARRY and FUENTES, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

ROTH, Circuit Judge.

Lamont Anderson pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He stipulated to the underlying predicate offenses for enhanced sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). He was sentenced to 156 months imprisonment.

Anderson’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967) expressing his belief that there were no non-frivolous issues presented for our review. As required by Anders, counsel directed us to portions of the record that might arguably support an appeal. Also, as required by Anders, Anderson was given notice of his attorney’s desire to withdraw, allowing him the opportunity to raise any issues for appeal in a supplemental pro se brief. He failed to do so. Anderson’s attorney pointed us to two possible grounds for appeal: (1) whether Anderson’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and (2) whether the sentence imposed was legal.

As to the first ground, that Anderson’s plea was not knowingly and voluntarily taken, pursuant to F.R.Crim.P. 11, the court can accept a plea of guilty only after determining that the plea is voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently entered and supported by an ample factual basis. We find from the record that the plea colloquy satisfies the requirements of F.R.Crim. P. 11.

As to the second ground, that Anderson’s sentence of 156 months imprisonment is not legal, Anderson’s offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines called for a sentence of 262 to 327 months. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) and a 5K1.1 motion from the government, the District Court departed from the Guidelines as permitted in its limited authority. The District Court decided not to depart further based on Anderson’s criminal history and his crimes of violence. We find no abuse of discretion in this decision. Therefore, the sentence imposed upon Anderson was legal.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court and grant counsel’s request to withdraw.  