OPINION

James Sims appeals his conviction and sentence on a charge of conspiracy to dis *137 tribute and to possess with intent to distribute less than five grams of crack cocaine, in -violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). He was sentenced to 168 months’ imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment. Sims’ 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), discussing the propriety of Sims’ status as a career offender, but concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Sims was notified of his right to file an additional brief, which he failed to do. In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

By counsel, Sims challenged his classification as a career offender pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude that Sims satisfied the criteria for enhancement under USSG § 4B1.1, as a career offender.

In addition, our review of the record and transcripts in this case reveal that the district court complied fully with the mandates of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. The record reflects that Sims’ plea was knowing and voluntarily entered into. There were no irregularities in the plea process, and we find that Sims was sentenced upon a proper application of the guidelines and consistent with statutory and constitutional law. Accordingly, we affirm Sims’ 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.