
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Michael BROWN, a/k/a Solo, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 07-4440.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 15, 2009.
    Decided: Jan. 21, 2009.
    Janna D. Allison, Janna D. Allison, PLLC, Waynesville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Anthony Michael Brown pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine, cocaine, and marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 851 (2006). The district court sentenced Brown as a career offender to a 262-month sentence, the bottom of the advisory sentencing guideline range. Brown’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), suggesting that counsel, who represented Brown in the district court, provided ineffective assistance. Appellate counsel states, however, that, in her view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Brown was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

Appellate counsel asserts that counsel below provided ineffective assistance by failing to inform Brown that he was subject to a twenty-year mandatory minimum sentence and could be sentenced as a career offender. This court, however, “may address [claims of ineffective assistance] on direct appeal only if the lawyer’s ineffectiveness conclusively appears from the record.” United States v. Baldovinos, 434 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.2006). We find that Brown has failed to meet this high standard and, therefore, decline to review this claim on direct appeal.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record for any meritorious issues and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform her 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.  