
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raynard Allen JENKINS, a/k/a Nard, a/k/a Hemi, a/k/a News, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-4567.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: March 30, 2015.
    Decided: April 9, 2015.
    Joshua Snow Kendrick, Kendrick & Leonard, P.C., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Be-thea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appel-lee.
    Before WILKINSON, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Raynard Allen Jenkins appeals his conviction and 170-month sentence imposed by the district court after he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine base, 500 grams or more of cocaine, and a quantity of marijuana, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846 (2012). Jenkins’ counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising as potential issues the adequacy of the plea hearing and the reasonableness of Jenkins’ sentence. Although informed of his right to do so, Jenkins has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

Having reviewed the transcript of the plea colloquy for plain error, we conclude that the district court substantially complied with the requirements of Fed. R.Crim.P. 11, and that the court’s failure to inform Jenkins of the potential immigration consequences of his plea did not affect his substantial rights. See Henderson v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 1121, 1126-27, 185 L.Ed.2d 85 (2013) (providing standard); see also United States v. Davila, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2139, 2147, 186 L.Ed.2d 139 (2013) (applying standard in guilty plea context). Our review also leaves us with no doubt that the district court’s imposition of a sentence of 170 months’ imprisonment is procedurally and substantively reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious grounds for appeal and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Jenkins, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Jenkins requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Jenkins. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  