
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clifton ADIANSHINGH, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4585.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 13, 2002.
    Decided June 27, 2002.
    Nelson R. Bickley, Bickley & Jacobs, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Samuel D. Marsh, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Clifton Adianshingh appeals his conviction and sentence following his guilty plea to one count of unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g), 924(a)(2) (West 2000). Adianshingh claims his plea was unknowing and involuntary and that he should have been allowed to withdraw the plea.

Adianshingh’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that there are no meritorious issues presented in this appeal, but raising questions as to whether Adians-hingh’s plea was knowing and voluntary and whether the court properly denied his request to withdraw the plea. Adians-hingh was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief and has elected not to do so.

We closely scrutinize the plea colloquy between a prisoner and the district court. The plea colloquy attaches a strong presumption that the plea is final and binding if the proceeding was adequately conducted in conformity to Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. See United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir.1992). Our examination of the record demonstrates that the district court adequately followed Rule ll’s directives. Moreover, Adianshingh presents no evidence that would rebut the presumption that his plea was knowing and voluntary. We thus reject his claim to the contrary.

We also reject Adianshingh’s contention that he should have been allowed to withdraw his plea. No relevant factor supported his request to withdraw his plea. See United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal. 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. Finally, 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.  