
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles PHILLIPS, a/k/a Mello, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4652.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 22, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 21, 2003.
    Leslie Carter Rawls, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Jack M. Knight, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
    Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Charles Phillips appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (2000). Counsel 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 there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but contends on Phillips’ behalf that Phillips’ plea was not knowing and voluntary and that the district court erred in determining his sentence. Phillips has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, although informed of his right to do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Phillips first contends his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Because Phillips did not move to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court, this court reviews the Rule 11 proceeding for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 527 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 123 S.Ct. 200, 154 L.Ed.2d 169 (2002). An appropriately conducted Rule 11 proceeding raises a strong presumption that the plea is final and binding. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir.1995). The record establishes the Rule 11 hearing was adequate, and the district court did not err in accepting Phillips’ guilty plea. See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114,117,120 (4th Cir.1991).

Phillips next contends the district court erred in determining his sentence. Because Phillips did not raise this issue in the district court, review is for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). We find no such error in the district court’s determination of Phillips’ sentence.

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm Phillips’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests a petition be filed, but counsel believes 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.  