UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 99-4785

LUIS GUTIERREZ-SAENZ, a/k/a Ramon

Bravo,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.

James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-99-128)

Submitted: February 24, 2000

Decided: March 3, 2000

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Walter C. Horton, Jr., United States Attorney, Arnold L.

Husser, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Luis Gutierrez-Saenz appeals from his conviction of and sentence

imposed for reentry into the United States after having been deported.

Gutierrez-Saenz's attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he argues that the sentence

imposed was excessive, but represents that there are no arguable

issues of merit in this appeal. Gutierrez-Saenz was notified of his

right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Because the

sentence imposed was within the proper guideline range and we can

discern no error on this record, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Gutierrez-Saenz contends that the district court abused its discretion in imposing the eighty-seven month term of imprisonment. We

find that Gutierrez-Saenz's guideline range was properly calculated

pursuant to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1998). Because

Gutierrez-Saenz's sentence is within a correctly calculated guideline

range and does not exceed the statutory maximum penalty for his

crime, this court lacks authority to review the district court's discretionary decision as to where to impose sentence within the guideline

range. See United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).

Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for potential

error and has found none. Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of the

appeal challenging the imposition of a sentence within the guideline

range and affirm the conviction and sentence in all other respects. We

deny counsel's motion to withdraw. 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 again 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 argu-

 2
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

 3