UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4000

MICHAEL LEE DRAKE,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.

James C. Fox, Chief District Judge.

(CR-95-124-F)

Submitted: February 27, 1997

Decided: March 13, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gerald L. Bass, BASS, BRYANT & MOORE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney,

J. Frank Bradsher, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michael Lee Drake pled guilty to use of a firearm during and in

relation to a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1) (1994) and possession with intent to distribute cocaine

base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). Drake waived all

appellate rights in his plea agreement with the exception of claims of

ineffective assistance and prosecutorial misconduct not known at the

time of his guilty plea. The district court sentenced Drake to serve

228 months imprisonment followed by five years of supervised

release and a special assessment of $100. Drake appeals the judgment.

Drake's attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), evaluating the issue of the Government's breach of the plea agreement raised by Drake in his pro se

notice of appeal but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious

issues for appeal. Drake filed a pro se supplemental brief raising additional issues, some of which are reviewable under the waiver provisions. Drake contends that the Government breached the plea

agreement because Drake was sentenced at a higher offense level than

he anticipated, that Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 was violated because he did

not see the presentence report until after sentencing thus establishing

ineffective assistance of trial counsel, that the Government improperly used self-incriminatory information provided by Drake against

him, in violation of the plea agreement, and that the Government

delayed disclosure of requested discovery material in violation of the

rule established in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

We have considered both the issues raised by counsel and alleged

in Drake's pro se brief and find them to be without merit. In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have examined the entire

record in this case 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.

 2
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