
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andre V. FRAZIER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4491.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 23, 2002.
    Decided Feb. 8, 2002.
    J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Lee Ellis Berlinsky, Office of the United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Andre Frazier was convicted by a jury of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1) (West 2000) and sentenced to thirty-three months’ imprisonment. Frazier’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel states that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but asserting the trial court erred in denying his Fed.R.Crim.P. 29 motion for acquittal. Frazier was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.

In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, we must sustain the jury’s verdict if the record contains “substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). Applying this standard, we give due regard to the jury’s prerogative to resolve questions of credibility. United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862-63 (4th Cir.1996). We conclude the Government presented sufficient evidence to sustain Frazier's jury conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon. Thus the district court did not err in denying Frazier’s motion for acquittal under Fed.R.Crim.P. 29.

Accordingly, we affirm Frazier’s conviction and sentence. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal. 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.  