UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,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_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELCameron 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 pr ecedent 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 distributecrack 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 courtcomplied with all the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Leatherwood's guilty plea. SeeFED. 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 b ecause 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).
2As 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 clientrequests 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 acopy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3