UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

WILLY EMMANUEL, a/k/a William

No. 99-4014

Belizaire, a/k/a Willey Emmanuel,

a/k/a Willie Emanuel, a/k/a William

Emmanuel,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

David C. Norton, District Judge.

(CR-98-120-2)

Submitted: February 22, 2000

Decided: March 2, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Eduardo K. Curry, CURRY, CURRY & CURRY, P.A., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Willy Emmanuel appeals from a 188-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). Emmanuel's

attorney 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 issue: whether the district court

improperly sentenced Emmanuel under the sentencing guidelines for

cocaine base rather than cocaine powder, causing Emmanuel to

receive a higher sentence. Emmanuel has filed a pro se supplemental

brief.

Based on the superceding indictment, the terms of the plea agreement, and Emmanuel's own admission during the Rule 11 hearing, it

is clear that Emmanuel pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base. Furthermore, our review of the record indicates

that Emmanuel withdrew any objection to the court's sentencing him

under the guidelines for possession with intent to distribute cocaine

after negotiating with the Government a two-point reduction in his

sentence for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Olano,

507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993) (claim raised for the first time on appeal

cannot justify reversal unless the error is "clear under current law").

Similarly, we reject Emmanuel's challenge in his pro se supplemental

brief to the amount of drugs the court attributed to him. See United

States v. Gilliam, 987 F.2d 1009, 1013 (4th Cir. 1993) (Government

may prove drug amount, inter alia, by defendants' admissions at Rule

11 hearing or by uncontested findings in the presentence report). We

note that to the extent that Emmanuel holds his attorney responsible

for the sentence he received, such a claim is appropriately raised in

the context of a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

Supp. 1999). See United States v. Williams, 977 F.2d 866, 871 (4th

Cir. 1992).

 2
We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with

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

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