UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4528

DONALD MOORE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.

(CR-96-243)

Submitted: December 11, 1997

Decided: December 31, 1997

Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

J. Robert Haley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, South

Carolina, for Appellant. Brucie Howe Hendricks, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Donald Moore appeals his conviction and sentence on a guilty plea

for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18

U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(e)(1) (West Supp. 1997). Moore's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), claiming three errors, but concluding that there are

no meritorious grounds for appeal. Moore was notified of his right to

file an additional brief, which he failed to do. In accordance with the

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

no meritorious issues for appeal.

Moore first claims that the district court erred in counting as predicate offenses under § 924(e), certain offenses of which Moore was

convicted when he was a juvenile. Because Moore was tried as an

adult for these convictions, this claim has no merit. See United States

v. Lender, 985 F.2d 151, 155-56 (4th Cir. 1993).

Second, Moore claims that the district court erroneously determined his prior convictions for felonious breaking and entering and

second degree burglary to be violent felonies. However, a § 924(e)

enhancement for burglary is proper where the defendant makes an

unlawful or unprivileged entry into or remains in a building or structure with the intent to commit a crime regardless of the exact definition of the crime charged. See Taylor v. United States, 110 S. Ct.

2143, 2158-59 (1990). In addition, this court has held that convictions

under North Carolina's breaking and entering statute are burglary

convictions for § 924(e) purposes. See United States v. Bowden, 975

F.2d 1080, 1084-85 (4th Cir. 1992). Hence, this claim is likewise

without merit.

Finally, Moore alleges that the district court erred in determining

that his escape conviction was a violent felony. We find that this

 2
claim also must fail. See United States v. Hairston, 71 F.3d 115, 118

(4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1699 (1996).

Accordingly, we affirm both Moore'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

 3