
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nilgel Rayshad PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-4857.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 15, 2007.
    Decided: June 19, 2007.
    Robert M.P. Masella, Masella Law Firm, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Nilgel Rayshad Parker pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of making false declarations before a grand jury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a), (c) (2000). Parker was sentenced by the district court to sixty months’ imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.

On appeal, counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting there were no meritorious grounds for appeal, but questioning whether the district court fully complied with the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. Although Parker was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he did not do so, and the Government elected not to file a responsive brief.

Because Parker did not seek to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, we review any alleged Rule 11 error for plain error. United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-26 (4th Cir.2002). To establish plain error, Parker must show that an error occurred, that the error was plain, and that the error affected his substantial rights. United States v. White, 405 F.3d 208, 215 (4th Cir.2005). We have reviewed the record and find no error.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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 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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  