
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Anthony EDWARDS, a/k/a Lanzel Reid, a/k/a Teddy Reid, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4030.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 28, 2002.
    Decided March 20, 2002.
    Marshall A. Swann, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. C. Nicks Williams, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Michael Anthony Edwards pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001). He appeals his conviction and sentence. Edwards’ attorney has filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), requesting this court conduct a de novo review of the record but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Edwards was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he did not file such a brief despite being granted an extension of time to do so.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case. Our review convinces us that Edwards’ plea was knowing and voluntary, and was supported by an adequate factual basis. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. Edwards’ sentence of 120 months imprisonment is within the properly calculated Guideline range. We have found no meritorious issues for appeal, and therefore affirm Edwards’ conviction and sentence.

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.

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. 
      
      
        U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2000).
     