
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sandra Lewis COCKRELL, a/k/a P Nut, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4886.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 1, 2002.
    Decided July 22, 2002.
    
      Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Sandra Lewis Cockrell appeals the district court’s sentence of twenty-eight months in prison, to run consecutively with her state-court sentence for involuntary manslaughter, following the revocation of her supervised release. Cockrell’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), raising the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing the twenty-eight month consecutive sentence, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Cockrell filed a supplemental pro se brief raising numerous claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

We have reviewed the sentence and find no error. Furthermore, claims of ineffective assistance are not cognizable on direct appeal unless counsel’s ineffectiveness plainly appears on the face of the record. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir.1991). We have reviewed the record for error and have found no clear ineffective assistance by Cockrell’s counsel.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Cockrell’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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 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.  