
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luis Fernando SANCHEZ, a/k/a Luis Ricardo Sanchez, a/k/a Bictor Manuel Molina, a/k/a Luis Castregon-Sanchez, a/k/a Raul Alvarez-Montes, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4684.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 6, 2001.
    Decided May 11, 2001.
    
      Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, NC, for appellant. Walter -C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Arnold L. Husser, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Luis Fernando Sanchez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to unlawful re-entry after deportation by an alien who had previously been convicted of an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326(a), (b)(1) (West 1999). Sanchez’s 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). Counsel states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but contends on Sanchez’s behalf that the district court erred in sentencing Sanchez to ninety months imprisonment pursuant to a guideline range of seventy-seven to ninety-six months. Sanchez was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.

As Sanchez presents no challenge to the calculation of the guideline range but merely contends that the district court sentenced him too high within the correct range, we find that he is not entitled to appellate review on this claim. United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir.1990). In addition, we have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Sanchez’s conviction and sentence.

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 believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then 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. Finally, 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.  