
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Merrie Ellen REID, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4718.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 21, 2004.
    Decided June 10, 2004.
    Monroe Jamison, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

A jury found Merrie Ellen Reid guilty of conspiracy to commit bank robbery, aiding and abetting an aggravated armed bank robbery, conspiracy to possess a firearm in furtherance of the robbery, aiding and abetting in the possession of a firearm in furtherance of the robbery, conspiracy to commit carjacking, aiding and abetting in carjacking, conspiracy to possess a firearm in furtherance of carjacking, and aiding and abetting in the possession of a firearm in furtherance of carjacking. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 924(o), 924(c), 2113, 2113(a), 2113(d), 2113(e), 2119, 3559(c) (2000). Reid was sentenced to 572 months of imprisonment, to be followed by a five-year term of supervised release.

Reid’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising five potential issues: (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in refusing to strike a juror for cause; (2) whether the court abused its discretion in denying Reid’s motion to sever; (3) whether the court abused its discretion in denying expert testimony; (4) whether the evidence was sufficient on counts three, four, seven and eight of the indictment; and (5) whether the court erred in enhancing Reid’s offense level for abduction under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(4)(A) (2002). Reid was advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but declined to do so.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike the juror for cause, in denying Reid’s motion to sever or in excluding Reid’s expert’s testimony. Further, in viewing the verdict in the light most favorable to the Government, we find substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding of guilt on all counts. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942); United States v. Newsome, 322 F.3d 328, 333 (4th Cir.2003). Finally, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in its application of the abduction enhancement to Reid’s offense level. United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1003 (4th Cir.1996) (stating standard of review). Therefore, counsel’s proposed arguments are without merit.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Reid’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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  