
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Louis Rosederie SMITH, a/k/a WL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-4365.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Feb. 25, 2016.
    Decided: April 8, 2016.
    Mario A. Pacella, Strom Law Firm, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Nancy Chastain Wicker, Office of The United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Willie Louis Rosederie Smith pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to conspiracy to possess and distribute 500 grams of cocaine, 28 grams of crack, and 50-100 kilograms of marijuana. On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting there are no meritorious grounds for appeal, but asking whether the district court erred by denying Smith’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm.

We find no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Smith’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir.2000) (providing review standard). The district court held a hearing and properly analyzed Smith’s motion under United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.1991). We find no reversible error in this regard.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. This review includes the issues raised in Smith’s pro se supplemental brief. We therefore affirm Smith’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Smith, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Smith 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 Smith.

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.  