John Joseph Nosse appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) (2000). Nosse’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). Although counsel states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, she raises the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion by sentencing Nosse to 210 months’ imprisonment and imposing a $5000 fine. Although informed of his right to do so, Nosse did not file a pro se supplemental brief. In accordance with Anders, we have considered the briefs and examined the entire record for meritorious issues. Finding no error, we affirm.

It is well-settled that a sentence within a properly calculated sentencing guidelines *311 range is not appealable. United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding § 3742(a) precludes a criminal defendant from seeking review of court’s sentence anywhere within properly calculated sentencing range); 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2000). Because Nosse’s 210-month sentence falls within the properly calculated guidelines range of 188 to 235 months’ imprisonment, it is not reviewable on appeal.

Moreover, Nosse waived his right to appeal any fine imposed not in excess of the appropriate guidelines range. A defendant may, in a valid plea agreement, waive the right to appeal under § 3742(a), as long as it is the result of a knowing and intelligent decision to forgo the right to appeal. United State v. Wessell, 936 F.2d 165 (4th Cir. 1991). Because Nosse’s fine was not in excess of the $15,000 to $150,000 range established by the guidelines, and because his waiver was knowing and intelligent, he may not appeal the imposition of the fine to this court.

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 Nosse’s 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 to withdraw from representation at that time. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Nosse.

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