UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4041

JOHN ULYSES MANIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.

Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.

(CR-96-106-V)

Submitted: October 10, 1997

Decided: November 10, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Keith M. Stroud, Sr., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark

T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Robert J. Higdon, Jr., Assistant

United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John Ulyses Manis appeals his conviction by jury and sentence for

failing to surrender for service of a federal sentence, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(2) (1994). Manis's attorney has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), claiming

insufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, and alleging

an error in the jury instructions, but concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Manis was notified of his right to file an

additional brief, which he did. In his pro se brief, Manis raises the

additional claim that his conviction and sentence should be overturned because his indictment was invalid. In accordance with the

requirements of Anders, we have examined the entire record and find

no meritorious issues for appeal.

The record of this matter reveals that in a previous case, Manis

pled guilty to drug charges and received a prison sentence. He was

released and ordered to report to the Bureau of Prisons when notified

to serve his sentence, and also to report monthly to the United States

Probation office and to notify his probation officer of any change in

his address or telephone number. On March 25, 1996, the United

States Marshals Service wrote Manis, notifying him that he was to

surrender to the Federal Correction Institution in Petersburg, Virginia,

no later than noon on April 19, 1996. The letter was addressed to

Manis at the last known address he provided, and sent via regular

mail. Manis failed to report.

Trial testimony further established that Manis told his son that he

was supposed to report to federal authorities on April 19, 1996; that

Manis failed to report as directed in the letter; that while he had

reported to his probation officer each month before the letter was sent

telling him to report to serve his sentence, he failed to report to the

probation officer thereafter; that shortly after the date he was to report

to serve his sentence, Manis fled his last known address and went to

William Harrison's home; that Harrison told him to leave because

United States Marshals were looking for him; that Manis later moved

in with Ted Pigg, where he used an alias; and that Manis was

 2
removed from that home by federal marshals who found Manis hiding

when they searched the house.

We find that this evidence is overwhelmingly sufficient to support

Manis's conviction, especially when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government.1 Accordingly, we deny Manis relief on this

claim.

We further find that the issue raised as to the propriety of the jury

instruction as to willful blindness to be without merit, given that

Manis was claiming that he was unaware that he was to report to the

federal authorities. See, e.g., United States v. Schnabel, 939 F.2d 197,

203, 204 (4th Cir. 1991). We also conclude that the claim Manis

raised pro se as to his indictment is without merit. 2

Accordingly, we affirm both Manis'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

_________________________________________________________________

1 See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Glasser v. United

States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942); United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018,

1021 (4th Cir. 1982).

2 Manis does not allege that the indictment was facially invalid or was

returned by an illegally constituted grand jury, rather that the testimony

of one of the United States marshals was "unworthy" insofar as he testified that the notice ordering Manis to report for his sentence was sent via

certified mail, with a return receipt having been received by the marshals' office. Manis may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to

support the indictment on the basis that the evidence presented to the

grand jury was insufficient or incompetent. See United States v.

Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 345 (1974).

 3