
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Blanca ALVARENGA, Defendant— Appellant.
    No. 05-4001.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 15, 2005.
    Decided Sept. 13, 2005.
    
      Terry F. Rose, Smithfield, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Interim United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Blanca Alvarenga appeals her seventy-eight-month sentence imposed after she pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute a quantity of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Alvarenga’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), challenging Alvarenga’s sentence but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Alvarenga was informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

Alvarenga’s counsel raises as a potential issue whether, in light of United, States v. Booker, -U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), an information alleging a specific quantity of drugs may support a base offense level based upon that amount where the indictment did not charge a specific quantity of methamphetamine and the plea agreement did not refer to the information. In sentencing Alvarenga, the district court relied on the amount of drugs to which she stipulated and not on the higher amount set forth in the information. Moreover, our review of the record leads us to conclude that no Sixth Amendment violation occurred in this case because Alvarenga’s seventy-eight-month sentence is less than the applicable sentencing guideline range calculated in accordance with Booker and United States v. Evans, 416 F.3d 298, 300-01 & n. 4 (4th Cir.2005).

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