UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4650

NICK LEE DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-98-48)

Submitted: April 13, 1999

Decided: May 4, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Nick Lee Davis appeals from his conviction and sentence upon his

plea of guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in

violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

Davis' attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 389 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious

issues for appeal, but discussing the district court's Fed. R. Crim. P.

11 inquiry and its application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Davis was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental

brief, which he failed to file.

Davis does not allege any specific defect in the court's Rule 11

inquiry, and we find none. The court insured that Davis understood

the charges against him and the nature of his guilty plea. The court

also advised Davis about the potential punishments he faced. Finally,

Davis informed the court that he was satisfied with the performance

of counsel and that he was knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty.

We therefore find that the district court's inquiry satisfied the requirements of Rule 11. See United States v. DeFusco , 949 F.2d 114, 116-

17 (4th Cir. 1991) (discussing standard of review when examining

adequacy of Rule 11 colloquy).

Likewise, Davis does not allege any specific error in the district

court's calculation of his sentence, and we do not find any. Davis was

properly classified as a career offender. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, §§ 4B1.1(C), 4B1.2, comment. (n.2). Moreover, this

court lacks authority to review correctly calculated sentences falling

within the appropriate statutory or guideline range. See United States

v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990) (holding that the court's

imposition of a sentence within the properly calculated guideline

range does not state an appealable question under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998)).

Pursuant to the requirements of Anders, we have reviewed the

entire record in this case and find no reversible error. We therefore

affirm Davis' conviction and sentence.

 2
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 material before the court and

argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3