Charlayne A. Crawford appeals her conviction and sentence for seven counts of impersonating an officer or employee of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 912 (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 3147 (2000). Crawford’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that, in his opinion, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although concluding that such allegations lacked merit, counsel raises two claims on appeal: (1) whether the court complied with Rule 11 in accepting Crawford’s plea; and (2) whether the court erred in revoking Crawford’s bond. Crawford was notified of her right to file a supplemental pro se brief and filed an affidavit. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

In the Anders brief, Counsel asserts that the district court did not comply with Rule 11. We find no evidence that the court did not comply with the requirements in Rule 11. Crawford acknowledged that she knew and understood all of her rights prior to pleading guilty. She further indicated that she was pleading voluntarily and was satisfied with counsel.

Counsel also questions whether the district court erred in revoking Crawford’s bond. We find no evidence of error with this decision. Crawford’s bond included certain conditions with which she failed to comply.

Finally, Crawford filed an affidavit in which she reargues the merits of her initial conviction, appears to allege civil rights violations, and indicates her belief that her guilty plea was coerced. We find no evidence that Crawford’s plea was not given knowingly and voluntarily. Her other claims are without merit.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Crawford’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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