
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph ROPER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4611.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 22, 2001.
    Decided June 11, 2001.
    William R. Williams, Willcox, Buyck & Williams, P.A., Florence, SC, for appellant. John C. Keeney, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Joshua R. Hochberg, Chief, Philip Urofsky, Senior Trial Attorney, Fraud Section, Criminal Division, J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Roper, Jr., was found guilty of Counts 1-18 of the superseding indictment, for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, and guilty of Counts 42-48, money laundering. For Counts 1-17 Roper was sentenced to sixty months each and for Counts 18, 42-48 to 135 months each, with all sentences to run concurrently. Roper’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising two issues but stating that in his opinion there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Roper raises the same issues in his pro se supplemental brief. For the reasons that follow we affirm.

First, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the conspiracy convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. Glosser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). Second, we do not find that the district court clearly erred by increasing Roper’s offense level by four for being a leader or organizer under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1 (1998). United States v. France, 164 F.3d 203, 209 (4th Cir.1998), cert, denied, 527 U.S. 1010, 119 S.Ct. 2351, 144 L.Ed.2d 247 (1999).

Having examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, we find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. 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, 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.  