UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4928

LARRY JENKINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.

Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-96-358)

Submitted: April 29, 1999

Decided: May 7, 1999

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William N. Nettles, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Scarlett

Anne Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Larry Jenkins was charged in a superseding indictment with conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute controlled

substances. In the midst of trial, Jenkins entered a guilty plea and was

sentenced to a term of seventy-one months imprisonment. His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view, there

are no meritorious issues for appeal. Jenkins has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising several additional issues--to which the government has responded--and a number of replies to the government's

response. After a thorough review of the record and the materials submitted on appeal, we affirm the conviction and the sentence. We grant

Jenkins' motions to file a pro se formal brief, to add an exhibit to his

pro se "Supplemental Respond Brief," and to add an exhibit to his initial pro se brief. We grant the government's motion to file a transcript

of the change of plea hearing.

Counsel presents as a potentially meritorious issue the adequacy of

the district court's compliance with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure in accepting Jenkins' guilty plea. Our review of

the Rule 11 hearing transcript reveals that the district court fully complied with the Rule. In his pro se brief, Jenkins contends that his attorney's representation was ineffective in counseling a guilty plea, that

his attorney altered the plea agreement negotiated by prior counsel

without his knowledge, that the indictment was defective, that the district court failed to ensure that he understood the charge before

accepting his guilty plea, and that the factual basis for the guilty plea

was inadequate. Claims of ineffective assistance should be raised by

a motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998),

unless it "conclusively appears" from the record that counsel did not

provide effective assistance. United States v. Fisher, 477 F.2d 300,

302 (4th Cir. 1973); see also United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 641, 650

(4th Cir. 1995). In this case, it does not conclusively appear from the

record on appeal that Jenkins received ineffective assistance of counsel. Consequently, this claim is more properly raised in a § 2255

motion.

 2
In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in

this case and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the conviction and sentence. 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 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 record and briefs, and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3