UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4306

WILLIAM VANDROSS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.

(CR-96-524)

Submitted: March 31, 1999

Decided: May 3, 1999

Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Eduardo Kelvin Curry, CURRY, CURRY & COUNTS, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., OFFICE

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

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted William Vandross (Vandross) of the following

charges: one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute and to distribute crack cocaine and heroin, 21 U.S.C.A. § 846

(West Supp. 1998); one count of possession with the intent to distribute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1981); five counts

of distribution of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West

1981); one count of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine,

crack cocaine, and heroin, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1981); one

count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 1998); one count of conspiracy to use unauthorized telecommunication services, 18 U.S.C.A.§ 1029 (West

Supp. 1998); and one count of unauthorized use of telecommunications services, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1029(a)(5) (West Supp. 1998).

Counsel for Vandross has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states that there are no

meritorious grounds for appeal but addresses the following issues:

whether the district court clearly erred when it sentenced Vandross as

an organizer or leader of the criminal activity; whether the district

court clearly erred when it found that Vandross was more than minimally involved in the planning of the cellular phone cloning portion

of the conspiracy; and whether the district court clearly erred when

it enhanced Vandross' sentence for possessing a dangerous weapon

during a narcotics offense. Vandross, informed of his right to file a

supplemental brief, filed two briefs asserting several grounds for

appeal.*

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with

_________________________________________________________________

*We grant Vandross' motion to file an addendum to his supplemental

brief.

 2
the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

We accordingly affirm Vandross' convictions 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

 3