
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James DUKES, Jr., a/k/a Bubba, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4866.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 17, 2001.
    Decided Oct. 30, 2001.
    E.T. Moore, Jr., Moore Law Firm, Barnwell, SC, for appellant. Jane Barrett Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, SC, for appellee.
    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

James Dukes, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence of sixty months imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999). Dukes’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), addressing whether the district court fully complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Dukes’ guilty plea, and whether the imposition of a sixty-month statutory mandatory minimum sentence violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), but stating that in his opinion there were no meritorious issues for appeal. Although advised of his right to do so, Dukes has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

We have reviewed the record and find that the district court complied with all the mandates of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Dukes’ guilty plea. See United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400, 402 (4th Cir.1995) (providing standard). We further find Dukes’ sixty-month sentence did not violate Apprendi. See United States v. Angle, 254 F.3d 514, 518 (4th Cir.2001) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 309, — L.Ed.2d - (2001); United States v. Pratt, 239 F.3d 640, 647 (4th Cir.2001).

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Dukes’ 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.  