UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4560

STANLEY WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-98-270)

Submitted: April 20, 2000

Decided: May 3, 2000

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam

opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James F. Sumpter, JAMES F. SUMPTER, P.C., Richmond, Virginia,

for Appellant. Michael Cornell Wallace, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Williams pleaded guilty to one count of possession of

cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.

§ 841(a)(1) (West 1999). He received a 120-month sentence. His

attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for

appeal but asserting that the district court erred when it denied Williams' motions for a downward adjustment as a minimal participant

in the offense and for a downward adjustment for voluntary disclosure

of the offense. Williams was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have considered the entire record on appeal, as

well as the brief, and find no error. Therefore, we affirm.

Williams first claims entitlement to a downward adjustment

because he was a minor or minimal participant in the crime. See U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2 (1998). Because Williams

was the only known participant in the charged offense, the district

court did not clearly err in denying the adjustment. See United States

v. Gordon, 895 F.2d 932, 935 (4th Cir. 1990). Williams also asserts

that the court should have departed downward because he told officers conducting a consent search where to find the drugs. See USSG

§ 5K2.16, p.s. A district court's decision not to depart downward

from the guideline range is not subject to appellate review unless the

refusal to depart is based on the mistaken belief that the court lacked

the authority to depart. See United States v. Barley, 898 F.2d 28, 30-

31 (4th Cir. 1990). Because it is clear from the record that the court

recognized its authority to depart and chose not to do so, we dismiss

Williams' appeal as to the departure issue.

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record for potential error

and have found none. Accordingly, although we dismiss that portion

of the appeal challenging the denial of the motion for downward

departure, we affirm Williams' conviction and sentence in all other

respects. 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 Williams requests that such a petition be filed, but

 2
counsel believes that a petition would be frivolous, counsel may then

move in this court to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion

must state that a copy thereof was served on his 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

 3