UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-4526
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
KEITH WILLIAM HUBBARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District
Judge. (CR-99-5)
Submitted: April 25, 2000 Decided: May 12, 2000
Before MURNAGHAN, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Onzlee Ware, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch,
Jr., United States Attorney, Anthony P. Giorno, Assistant United
States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Keith William Hubbard appeals from a 180-month sentence im-
posed following his guilty plea to being a felon in possession of
firearms, 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 1999). Hubbard’s
attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal but addresses the following issues: whether the
district court erred in denying Hubbard’s motion to withdraw his
guilty plea, and whether the court erred in sentencing him as an
armed career criminal. Although Hubbard was informed of his right
to file a supplemental brief, he has not filed a pro se brief.
We conclude that the district court neither abused its discre-
tion by denying Hubbard’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea nor
erred by sentencing Hubbard as an armed career criminal. Further,
we have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for
appeal. 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 friv-
olous, 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
2
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3