OPINION

Robert Steve Jolly appeals his conviction and sentence of twenty-seven months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon, in viola *291 tion of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (2000). Jolly’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting the district court erred by sentencing Jolly to twenty-seven months’ imprisonment, but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Jolly has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Jolly challenges the district court’s imposition of a twenty-seven month sentence. Because the sentence does not exceed the maximum allowed by the Guidelines or statute, we will not review it on appeal. See United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990) (finding challenge to court’s exercise of discretion in setting a sentence within a properly calculated guideline range not addressable on appeal).

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Jolly’s conviction and sentence. 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 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.