
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tony PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-4283.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 23, 2003.
    Decided Oct. 30, 2003.
    Katherine E. Evatt, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Tony Patterson pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine and more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and possession with intent to distribute and distribution of fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000). He was sentenced to 293 months’ imprisonment. In this appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Patterson claims to have found no non-frivolous grounds for appeal, but challenges the district court’s acceptance of Patterson’s guilty plea and calculation of his sentence. Patterson has been advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.

Neither claim presented by counsel was preserved in the district court. Therefore, they are reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 526-27 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 899, 123 S.Ct. 200, 154 L.Ed.2d 169 (2002). First, Patterson asserts that the district court erred in its proceedings under Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 to accept his guilty plea. Our review of the hearing discloses that the district court complied with the strictures of Rule 11. Therefore, this claim merits no relief.

Next, Patterson asserts that the district court erred in calculating his sentence. However, our review of the district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines discloses that Patterson is entitled to no relief on that ground as his sentence did not exceed the maximum applicable under the relevant statutes. Therefore, we deny relief on this claim as well.

As we find no meritorious issues upon our review of the record pursuant to Anders, we affirm the judgment of the district court. This court requires that counsel inform her 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.  