OPINION

Geoffrey Stubbs appeals his conviction and 120-month sentence pursuant to his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 841(a)(1), and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Stubbs’s *162 counsel has filed a brief on appeal pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and Stubbs has filed a pro se supplemental brief.

First, Stubbs claims that the district court failed to comply with Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in accepting Stubbs’s guilty plea. The record clearly indicates that the district court did comply with Rule 11, and therefore this claim is without merit.

Second, Stubbs contends that the district court erred in calculating his sentence. In fact, the sentence was within the correct guideline range and below the statutory maximum, and therefore this court has no authority to review the district court’s imposition of sentence. United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).

In addition, we have reviewed the claims Stubbs raises in his supplemental brief and find them to be meritless. We therefore affirm Stubbs’s conviction and sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found 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.