UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-4467

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus

MATHEW ARCHIE, a/k/a Matthew Archie, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CR-98-1184)

Submitted: February 10, 2000 Decided: February 15, 2000

Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leesa Washington, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Mathew Archie appeals his criminal conviction for possession of cocaine base with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). We affirm. Archie’s at- torney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two possible issues for appeal: (1) the validity of Archie’s guilty plea; and (2) the propriety of Archie’s sentence. Our review of the record reveals no reversible error as to either of these issues or the issues raised in Archie’s pro se supplemental brief.

Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for potential error and has found none. Therefore, we affirm Archie’s sentence and conviction. 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 move 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