OPINION

James David Sluss pled guilty to use of a telephone in the commission of a drug trafficking felony, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b) (1994). He appeals his sentence. Sluss’ attorney has filed a brief citing Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), contending the district court erred in determining Sluss’ relevant conduct but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Sluss has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

We review the district court’s factual findings regarding the application of the federal sentencing guidelines for clear error. United States v. Williams, 977 F.2d 866, 869 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir. 1989). We find the district court did not clearly error in determining Sluss’ relevant conduct. See United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a)(2) (2000). We have also reviewed Sluss’ supplemental brief and find his claims meritless.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Sluss’ conviction and sentence. We deny Sluss’ motions to relieve his counsel and to appoint him new counsel. This court requires that counsel inform his chent, 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 such a 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 *119 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.