Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Jesus Garcia-Pena pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation following a conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). Garcia-Pena was sentenced to forty-six months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, and now appeals. His attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising one issue but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Garcia-Pena was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not do so. We affirm.

In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the district court erred in accepting Garcia-Pena’s guilty plea as knowing and voluntary. Because Garcia-Pena did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002). Furthermore, there is a strong presumption that a defendant’s guilty plea is binding and voluntary if he has received an adequate Fed. R.Crim.P. 11 hearing. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995); see Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74, 97 S.Ct. 1621, 52 L.Ed.2d 136 (1977) (finding that statements made during a plea hearing “carry a strong presumption of verity”). Our review of the record discloses that the district court fully complied with Rule 11. We conclude, therefore, that the district court did not err in accepting Garcia-Pena’s guilty plea.

We have examined the entire record in accordance with the requirements of An-ders and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Garcia-Pena, in writing, of the light to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Garcia-Pena 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 *275 representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Garcia-Pena. 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