UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 95-5038

ALFONZO JAMES,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Richard B. Kellam, Senior District Judge.

(CR-94-115)

Submitted: December 19, 1996

Decided: January 10, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David B. Smith, ENGLISH & SMITH, Alexandria, Virginia, for

Appellant. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Alfonzo James appeals the sentence imposed after the district court

found him guilty of two counts of possession of ammunition by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp.

1996). James' attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two potential sentencing

errors but concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.

James was notified of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he

failed to do so. We affirm.

James contends that the district court failed to award a two-level

reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.11 for acceptance of responsibility

and erred in considering prior arrests in the criminal history category

calculation. James did not object during sentencing. Thus, he waived

any possible error in the computation of his sentence, absent plain

error. United States v. Ford, 88 F.3d 1350, 1355-56 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, ___ U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3369 (U.S. Nov. 18, 1996) (No.

96-6379). No plain error exists on the record warranting review of

James' sentence.

We note, however, that a conflict exists between the sentencing

hearing transcript and the written judgment with regard to the term of

imprisonment.2 The sentencing hearing transcript reflects a sentence

of forty months imprisonment on the first count of possession of

ammunition by a convicted felon with the sentence in that count to

run concurrently with the forty-six-month prison sentence imposed in

the second count. But the written judgment imposes prison terms of

forty-six months each on the first and second counts to run concurrently with each other. Ordinarily, the oral pronouncement of the sentence governs. Rakes v. United States, 309 F.2d 686, 687-88 (4th Cir.

_________________________________________________________________

1 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.

1994). James was sentenced on January 4, 1995.

2 No conflict exists as to the other sentencing terms. Both the oral pronouncement at sentencing and the written judgment imposed a three-year

supervised release term on each count to run concurrently with each

other and a $100 special assessment.

 2
1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 939 (1963); see United States v.

Daddino, 5 F.3d 262, 266 & n.5 (7th Cir. 1993) (collecting cases recognizing general rule). Both a forty-month and forty-six-month sentence fall within the applicable guideline range. Accordingly, we

remand the case to the district court to correct the clerical error in the

judgment. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in

this case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. We affirm

the oral sentence imposed by the district court but remand the case to

the district court to correct the clerical error in the judgment.

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 AND REMANDED

 3