UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4496

RALPH EDWARD RAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg.

Robert Earl Maxwell, Senior District Judge.

(CR-95-10)

Submitted: January 20, 1998

Decided: February 6, 1998

Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney,

Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West

Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Ralph Edward Ray appeals from his conviction, pursuant to a

guilty plea, of one count of distributing crack cocaine and aiding and

abetting another in distributing crack cocaine in violation of 21

U.S.C. § 841 (1994) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (1994). We affirm.

Ray's attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that Ray's appeal does not present

any meritorious issues. Counsel asserts that the district court complied

with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in taking Ray's guilty plea. We agree. The

court properly determined that Ray was competent to enter a plea, that

he understood the charge against him, the maximum and minimum

sentence, and the fine. Ray also stated that he understood the court

was obligated to consider the applicable sentencing guidelines. The

court also conducted a thorough review of the plea agreement with

Ray. Ray stated that he was not promised anything other than what

was in the plea agreement, nor was he forced to accept the terms of

the agreement. Ray was informed of the rights he was waiving by

entering a guilty plea. Finally, the district court properly found a

sound factual basis for accepting the guilty plea.

We also agree with counsel's contention that Ray's sentence does

not present any appealable issue. Ray raised four objections to the

Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR"). The Probation Department

submitted a corrected PSR incorporating two of the objections. The

district court sustained the other two. As a result, Ray's offense level

was calculated to be twenty-nine and he was placed in Criminal History Category II. Ray was sentenced to ninety-seven months, the lowest possible sentence within his Guidelines range, as recommended by

the Government.

In his pro se supplemental brief, Ray contends the court erred in

calculating for sentencing purposes the amount of narcotics for which

he was responsible. This contention is without merit. The court found

Ray responsible for 52.5 grams of cocaine base, the exact amount

stipulated by the parties in the plea agreement and suggested by

defense counsel.

 2
Pursuant to the requirements of Anders, this court has reviewed the

record for potential error and has found none. Therefore, we affirm

Ray'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 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