
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terry Dean LESTER, Defendan—Appellant.
    No. 07-5103.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 11, 2008.
    Decided: Sept. 15, 2008.
    Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Nancy C. Dickenson, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine Spurell, Research and Writing Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Terry Dean Lester pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon after having been subject to a protective court order, and was sentenced to 180 months in prison, the statutory mandatory minimum term pursuant to the Armed Career Criminal Act. See 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g), 924(e)(1) (West 2000 & Supp.2008). On appeal, his attorney has filed an Anders brief, concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but asserting that Lester’s classification as an armed career criminal was unconstitutional because Lester’s predicate convictions were not charged in the indictment. Although informed of his right to do so, Lester has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. After a thorough review of the entire record, we affirm.

As counsel notes, Lester’s argument is barred by controlling circuit precedent. We have repeatedly found that the indictment need not reference or list prior convictions used as a basis for an armed career criminal sentence. See, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 284 n. 4 (4th Cir.2005); United States v. Cheek, 415 F.3d 349, 352-54 (4th Cir.2005).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Lester’s 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 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. 
      
      
         Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
     