UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4832

LARRY SILAS POOLE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CR-96-463)

Submitted: July 30, 1998

Decided: August 19, 1998

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Thomas J. Quinn, MOSS & KUHN, P.A., Beaufort, South Carolina,

for Appellant. Matthew R. Hubbell, Assistant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Larry Silas Poole appeals his conviction by a jury of aggravated

sexual abuse of a child in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.§ 2241(c) (West

1994 & Supp. 1998), and his 144-month prison sentence. Poole's

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

U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but stating that, in his view, there

are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Poole was informed of his

right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. After a

thorough review of the record, we affirm Poole's conviction and sentence.

Poole's counsel asserts that the district court erred by admitting testimony that Poole had molested one of his granddaughters, an act for

which he had not been indicted, because it should have been excluded

under Fed. R. Evid. 403, 404(b), 414. Although Poole objected to the

admission of this evidence before trial, he did not renew the objection

at the time the government offered the evidence. Our review of the

admission of Poole's granddaughter's testimony therefore is for plain

error. See United States v. Chin, 83 F.3d 83, 87 (4th Cir. 1996).

Assuming, without deciding, that the district court erred in admitting

this testimony, we find no plain error given the overwhelming evidence of Poole's guilt.

Counsel also disputes whether Poole's sentence was properly calculated. We find no plain error in the calculation of Poole's sentence

because it was properly computed under the U.S. S ENTENCING

GUIDELINES MANUAL (1996). See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725,

732-37 (1993) (stating standard of review).

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and

find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

the 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

 2
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