UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-4403
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TERRY RAYNARD GARDNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-00-381)
Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 25, 2001
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United
States Attorney, Robert A.J. Lang, Assistant United States Attor-
ney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Terry Raynard Gardner appeals his sentence pursuant to a
guilty plea for possession of a firearm after having been convicted
of a felony in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000).
Gardner’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there are no meritorious
issues for appeal. On Gardner’s behalf, counsel contends the
district court misapplied the United States Sentencing Guidelines
to reach an improperly severe sentence. Although notified of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Gardner has not done so.
We have reviewed the entire record in this case in accordance
with the requirements of Anders and find no error in the district
court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines and no meritorious
issues for appeal. We therefore affirm.
Finally, we deny counsel’s motion to withdraw and require that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Gardner
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 Gardner. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
2
ly presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3