OPINION

Hector Salvador Dalmasi appeals his conviction and 108-month sentence imposed upon his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(A) (West 1999). Dalmasi’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising three issues on appeal but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Dalmasi was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has failed to do so.

Dalmasi reserved the right to appeal the suppression of evidence found during a traffic stop. The district court did not err in determining that the stop of Dalmasi’s vehicle was proper based on the undisputed testimony that he had committed several traffic infractions. See, e.g., Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810-19, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996). Once the vehicle was stopped, there was evidence suggesting that the vehicle contained drugs, so the subsequent search was supported by probable cause. United States v. Jeffus, 22 F.3d 554, 557 (4th Cir. 1994).

Our review of Dalmasi’s guilty plea and the Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 hearing reveal no error. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116-17 (4th Cir. 1991). This court lacks the authority to review a sentence *238 within a correctly calculated guideline range that results in a sentence within the statutory maximum. United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Dalmasi’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her 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 petition 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.