
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terry Lawrence WHITE, a/k/a Buster, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4445.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 28, 2001.
    Decided March 26, 2001.
    S.Y. Mason-Watson, Charlotte, NC, for appellant. Robert J. Higdon, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Terry Lawrence White appeals his conviction entered on his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine stemming from his role in a large-scale conspiracy. White noted a timely appeal and his counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he represents that there are no arguable issues of merit presented by this appeal. Nonetheless, in his brief, counsel addressed the possibility that the district court erred in declining to apply the “safety valve” provision under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) (1994) to White’s sentence. See United States v. Beltran-Ortiz, 91 F.3d 665, 667 (4th Cir.1996). White filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he advances the same claim of error as counsel. Because we find no error in the district court’s sentencing and can discern no other reversible error in the record on appeal, we affirm White’s conviction and sentence.

There is no merit to counsel’s suggestion of error on appeal. White did not meet all of the requirements for a departure under § 3553(f) because the district court found at sentencing that White failed to truthfully provide all information concerning the offense to the Government prior to sentencing. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(5). The court’s finding that White was not credible in his claim that he had provided all the information he had is not susceptible to appellate review. United States v. Saunders, 886 F.2d 56, 60 (4th Cir.1989). Because White does not meet all of the requirements set forth in § 3553(f), he is ineligible for a reduction under the “safety valve” provision. The district court did not err in declining to apply this reduction.

As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the entire record and all pertinent documents. We have considered all possible issues presented by this record and conclude that there are no non-frivolous grounds for this appeal. Pursuant to the plan adopted by the Fourth Circuit Judicial Council in implementation of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (1994), this court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review. If requested by the client to do so, counsel should prepare a timely petition for writ of certiorari, unless counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous. In that case, 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.

White’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. Counsel’s pending motion to withdraw is denied. 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. 
      
       The court has considered and rejected the possibility of reversible error in light of Ap
        
        prendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).
     