*715 OPINION

Pursuant to a valid plea agreement, Anthony Dwayne Aikens pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e) (2001), and received a 180 month prison term. Mkens’ 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). Counsel states that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but asserts the district court erred by refusing to grant Mkens’ motion to suppress evidence of the firearm obtained in a search incident to arrest. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a district court’s factual findings underlying its denial of a motion to suppress for clear error, while reviewing its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th Cir. 1992). In addition, in reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Seid-man, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998). Under these standards, we conclude the district court properly denied Mkens’ motion to suppress the evidence for the reasons stated in its May 21, 2002 order.

Accordingly, we affirm Mkens’ conviction and sentence. As required by An-ders, we have reviewed the record and conclude that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. 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