UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4133

YANCY NATHANIEL BOWMAN, 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-98-255)

Submitted: August 10, 1999

Decided: September 24, 1999

Before ERVIN,* MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra J. _________________________________________________________________ *Judge Ervin participated in the consideration of this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to

(d). Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Caro- lina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Yancy Nathaniel Bowman appeals his 168-month sentence imposed after a guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and cocaine hydrochloride, in violation of

(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). Bowman's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,

(1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Bowman was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has failed to do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Bowman challenges his sentence on the ground that the district court erred in calculating the amount of drugs used to establish a base offense level of thirty-eight. Because Bowman withdrew his objection to the amount of drugs at the sentencing hearing, he has forfeited review of this claim, absent plain error. See United States v. Wells,

(4th Cir. 1998). We find no plain error in the dis- trict court's determination of the amount of drugs attributable to Bow- man. See United States v. Olano,

(1993).

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm Bowman's convic- tion and sentence and deny counsel's motion for leave to withdraw. 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

2 move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Coun- sel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3