UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 97-4431 JULIUS LOROSA EVANS, a/k/a Touche, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-96-222) Submitted: March 17, 1998 Decided: April 22, 1998 Before WIDENER and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Lawrence J. Fine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appel- lee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Appellant Julius Larosa Evans pled guilty to one count of conspir- acy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(a), 846 (1994). On appeal, Evans's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising one issue: whether the district court erred in enhancing Evans's sentence three levels for being a manager or a supervisor of five or more participants under U. S. Sentencing Guide- lines Manual § 3B1.1(b) (1995). Evans was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief and has not done so. Because we find no reversible error, we affirm.

Evans did not file any objections to the presentence report, nor did he raise any objections during sentencing. "Absent plain error, appel- late review of a sentence is waived when the defendant fails to object to the sentence calculation in the district court." United States v. Grubb, 11 F.3d 426, 440 (4th Cir. 1993). We note, however, that even if an objection had been made, the district court's conclusion that Evans organized a criminal activity consisting of five or more people was not clearly erroneous, since the evidence clearly established that Evans organized a drug dealing enterprise supervising numerous other individuals out of his home.

As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the record and all pertinent documents. We have considered all possible issues presented, and we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for appeal. Because the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm Evans's sentence. 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 again move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation.

Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the cli- ent. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con- tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED