UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-4501
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MUSTAFA A. CUNNINGHAM,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (CR-96-733)
Submitted: May 11, 1999 Decided: May 21, 1999
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Robert Hayden Bickerton, Assistant United States
Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mustafa Cunningham pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
the intent to distribute and to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 846 (West Supp. 1998). The district court imposed a thirty-month
sentence. Cunningham’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 raises the
following issue: whether the district court erred in refusing to
enforce a state court order that Cunningham serve any concurrent
federal sentence in a federal correctional institution. Although
informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, Cunningham has
failed to so file. Because our review of the record reveals no
reversible error, we affirm.
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 frivo-
lous, 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