UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 97-4874

JOHN PAUL LEATHERWOOD, a/k/a

Black,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.

Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CR-97-158-DWS)

Submitted: June 30, 1998

Decided: July 14, 1998

Before ERVIN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Cameron Bruce Littlejohn, Jr., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

John Paul Leatherwood appeals his conviction and sentence after

a guilty plea to two counts of possession with intent to distribute

crack cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). Leatherwood's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating that,

in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Leatherwood

has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising three issues. Finding no

error, we affirm.

Leatherwood's counsel first questions whether the district court

complied with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure when taking Leatherwood's plea. Following a de

novo review of the entire record, we conclude that the district court

complied with all the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Leatherwood's guilty plea. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 11. Counsel also disputes

whether Leatherwood's sentence was properly calculated. We find no

plain error in the calculation of Leatherwood's sentence because it

was properly computed under the U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES

MANUAL (1996). See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37

(1993).

In his supplemental brief, Leatherwood challenges his sentence on

the grounds that the government engaged in sentencing entrapment or

manipulation and that he was improperly sentenced under the crack

cocaine guidelines. We have considered Leatherwood's claims but

reject them as meritless. Finally, Leatherwood asserts that counsel

rendered ineffective assistance. This claim should be raised in a

motion under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998), and not

on direct appeal, because the record does not conclusively show that

counsel was ineffective. See United States v. King, 119 F.3d 290, 295

(4th Cir. 1997) (providing standard).

 2
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and

find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

Leatherwood's 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 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3