OPINION OF THE COURT

Because our opinion is wholly without precedential value, and because the parties and the District Court are familiar with its operative facts, we offer only an abbreviated recitation to explain why we will affirm the order of the District Court.

Diallo appeals the District Court’s order of judgment and sentence. He pleaded guilty to one count of Trafficking in Counterfeit Labels Affixed to Copies of Motion Pictures and Audiovisual Works. 18 U.S.C. § 2318. He was sentenced at the low end of the advisory range: eighteen months’ incarceration; three years’ supervised release; and, restitution of $120,000.

During the investigation Diallo agreed to speak with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, where he admitted knowledge of the illegality of his actions. He changed his initial not-guilty plea to guilty after making a plea agreement with the government. The District Court, which properly had jurisdiction, conducted the standard plea colloquy prior to filing the order. There is clear evidence that Diallo knowingly and voluntarily entered the plea.

Diallo’s appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding that there are not any issues of arguable merit. After our independent investigation of the record, we conclude that counsel has conducted a reasonable review, and we agree that there are not any issues of arguable merit.

Accordingly, we will affirm the order of the District Court, and we will grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.