
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harvey L. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4636.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2001.
    Decided March 15, 2001.
    Edwin F. Brooks, Richmond, VA, for appellant. Stephen W. Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
    Before DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Harvey L. Lewis appeals his fifteen month sentence imposed pursuant to his conviction upon a guilty plea to two counts of being an unlawful drug user in possession of a weapon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(3) (West 2000). One count was vacated by the district court pursuant to United States v. Dunford, 148 F.3d 385 (4th Cir.1998). Lewis’ 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), raising one sentencing issue on appeal but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Lewis was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has failed to do so.

At sentencing, Lewis requested a downward departure on the grounds that his possession of the weapon was accidental, the weapon was unloaded and he had no ammunition, and he presented evidence that he had broken his addiction to drugs. The court considered these grounds but elected not to depart. Where the sentencing court was aware of its authority to depart and simply declined to do so, we lack authority to review its decision. See United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir.1990).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore dismiss this appeal. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw at this time. 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 in the decisional process.

DISMISSED.  