
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Luke STEWART, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4448.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 25, 2002.
    Decided April 11, 2002.
    
      John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jane Barrett Taylor, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Luke Stewart, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence of seventy months imprisonment after a guilty plea to a superseding information for distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999), using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of, a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(1) (West 2000), and criminal forfeiture under 21 U.S.C.A. § 853 (West 1999 & Supp. 2001). Stewart’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), addressing whether the magistrate judge fully complied with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Stewart’s guilty plea, and whether the district court committed error in sentencing Stewart, but stating that in his opinion there were no meritorious issues for appeal. Although advised of his right to do so, Stewart has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.

We have reviewed the record and find that the magistrate judge adequately complied with the mandates of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Stewart’s guilty plea. We further find that Stewart’s sentence was proper; the ten month sentence on the drug distribution count was within the properly calculated guidelines range, and the sixty month sentence on the firearm count was mandated by statute.

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Stewart’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 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.  