UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4103

ANNA PATRICIA GARZA, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-97-291)

Submitted: November 9, 1999

Decided: January 6, 2000

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Walter T. Johnson, Jr., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Anna Patricia Garza appeals her conviction after a guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of

(a)(1), 846 (1994). Garza'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 issues for appeal. Garza was informed of her right to file a pro se supple- mental brief but has failed to do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Counsel questions whether the district court fully complied with the mandates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Following a de novo review of the record, we find that the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 in accepting Garza's guilty plea and that any omissions by the district court were harmless error. See United States v. Goins,

(4th Cir. 1995); Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We there- fore affirm Garza's conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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 peti- tion 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 conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2