UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4683

DEXTER WILLIAM WALTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville.

Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge.

(CR-95-127)

Submitted: September 9, 1997

Decided: October 9, 1997

Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Parks N. Small, Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellant. Anthony Paul Giorno, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Dexter William Walton appeals from his conviction and sentence

for conspiracy to attempt to possess with intent to distribute cocaine

base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and for attempting to

possess with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(l) (1994). Walton's attorney has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing whether

the district court complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P.

11 in accepting Walton's guilty plea and whether the court properly

imposed Walton's sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines. Counsel

asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Walton was

notified of his right to file an additional brief, but has not done so. We

affirm.

Walton contends that the district court improperly conducted the

Rule 11 hearing in accepting his guilty plea. In reviewing the adequacy of compliance with Rule 11, this court accords great deference

to the trial court's decision as to how best to conduct the mandated

colloquy with the defendant. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114,

116 (4th Cir. 1991). Rule 11 violations are evaluated under the harmless error standard. Id. at 117. This court may vacate a conviction

resulting from a guilty plea only if the trial court's violations of Rule

11 affected the defendant's substantial rights. Id.

Our review of the record discloses that the district court sufficiently

complied with Rule 11 in informing Appellant of his rights and in

ascertaining the voluntariness of his plea. We find that because

Appellant's substantial rights were not in any way compromised, any

alleged error during the Rule 11 colloquy was harmless.

Walton also maintains that the district court inaccurately computed

his sentence based on the Sentencing Guidelines. However, Walton's

failure to object during sentencing amounts to a waiver of his right

to raise that issue on appeal absent plain error. United States v. Ford,

88 F.3d 1350, 1355-56 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 65

U.S.L.W. 3369 (U.S. Nov. 18, 1996) (No. 96-6379). We find no plain

error in the record warranting review of Walton's sentence.

 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 materials before the court,

and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3