
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Frederick WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-4417.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Nov. 16, 2011.
    Decided: Nov. 22, 2011.
    Steven R. Kiersh, Kiersh Law Office, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Frederick Williams appeals the district court’s judgment entered pursuant to his guilty plea to one count of distribution of oxycodone in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). Counsel for Williams has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he asserts that he has reviewed the entire record and discerned no meritorious issues for appeal, and seeks leave to withdraw. Williams was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.

In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the hearing conducted pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 11, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. At this juncture, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw. 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, counsel may move in this court at that time for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion 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.  