
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jabbar Jomo STRAWS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 07-4238.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 26, 2007.
    Decided: Dec. 6, 2007.
    Nathaniel Roberson, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Tara L. McGregor, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Jabbar Jomo Straws pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He was sentenced to a term of 210 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Straws’ attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but raising as potential issues whether the district court fully complied with Fed. R.Crim.P. 11, and whether the district court properly handled Straws’ pro se motions at sentencing. Although advised of his right to do so, Straws has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

First, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and find that the district court fully complied with the requirements of Rule 11 at Straws’ guilty plea hearing. Next, our review of Straws’ pro se motions and his colloquy with the district court at sentencing regarding those motions discloses that Straws knowingly and willingly withdrew the motions after ample opportunity to be heard and confer with counsel.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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.  