UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4566

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TONY LAVERN EDWARDS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CR-02-374)

Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 13, 2004

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael Francis Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM:

Tony Lavern Edwards appeals his convictions and sentence

following his guilty plea to violations of

(2000),

(g)(1) (2000), and

(a)(2) (2000).

Edwards’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California,

(1967). Although counsel states there are

no meritorious issues for appeal, he argues the district court

abused its discretion by sentencing Edwards to an excessive

sentence of 130 months’ imprisonment. Although informed of his

right to do so, Edwards did not file a pro se supplemental brief.

Counsel also filed a motion for leave to withdraw from

representation, and Edwards filed a motion for substitution of

counsel. In accordance with Anders, we have considered the brief

and examined the entire record for meritorious issues. Finding no

error, we affirm.

It is well-settled that a sentence within the properly

calculated sentencing guidelines range is not appealable. United

States v. Jones,

(4th Cir. 1994) (holding

§ 3742(a) precludes a criminal defendant from seeking review of

court’s sentence anywhere within properly calculated sentencing

range);

(a) (2000). Because Edwards’s 130-month

sentence falls within the properly calculated guidelines range of

120 to 150 months’ imprisonment, it is not reviewable on appeal.

- 2 - In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record in this case, including the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and

sentencing transcripts, and have found no meritorious issues for

appeal. We therefore affirm Edwards’s convictions and sentence.

We deny the motions to withdraw and for substitution of counsel at

this time. 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 to withdraw from

representation at that time. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on Edwards.

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

- 3 -