UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 97-4891

WESTON WAVE WILLIAMS, a/k/a

Diamond,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.

James P. Jones, District Judge.

(CR-96-70-H-C)

Submitted: September 30, 1998

Decided: October 28, 1998

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

H. David O'Donnell, GREEN & O'DONNELL, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United

States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Weston Wave Williams appeals his conviction and the sentence he

received after he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.§§ 841(a)(1), 846

(1994). The court sentenced Williams to 210 months' imprisonment

and five years of supervised release. Williams's counsel 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 issues for appeal. Williams's counsel provided him with a copy

of the Anders brief and informed him of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but Williams has failed to file a brief on his behalf.

Williams's counsel first questions whether the district court complied with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure when taking Williams's plea. We accord great

deference to the district court's conduction of the Rule 11 hearing,

and evaluate alleged Rule 11 violations under a harmless error standard.1

We will vacate a conviction resulting from a guilty plea only if the

trial court's violation of Rule 11 affected a defendant's substantial

rights.2 Following a de novo review of the entire record, we conclude

that the district court complied with all the mandates of Rule 11 in

accepting Williams's guilty plea by fully discussing the nature and

elements of the charge against Williams, the applicable penalties he

faced, including the effect of supervised release, and ensuring that he

consulted with and was satisfied with his counsel. The court also

addressed the rights Williams forfeited by virtue of his plea, the

impact of the Sentencing Guidelines, and ascertained that there was

a factual basis for the plea. Finally, the court questioned Williams to

_________________________________________________________________

1 See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116-17 (4th Cir. 1991).

2 Id. at 117.

 2
ensure that his plea was voluntary.3 Accordingly, we find no violation

of Rule 11, much less one that affected Williams's substantial rights.

Counsel also disputes whether Williams's sentence was properly

calculated. The only contested issue was an enhancement for possession of a firearm, which the district court found inapplicable. Pursuant

to his plea agreement, Williams was held accountable at sentencing

for the stipulated drug amount of 150-500 grams of cocaine base. This

corresponds to a base offense level of 34.4 After adjusting Williams's

base offense level for his leadership role in the offense (a four-level

enhancement)5 and for acceptance of responsibility (a three-level

reduction),6 the court calculated a total offense level of 35. This, combined with Williams's criminal history category of II, resulted in an

imprisonment range of 188-235 months.7 Because Williams's sentence of 210 months' imprisonment is within the applicable sentencing guidelines range, we find no plain error in Williams's properly

computed sentence.8

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

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

Williams'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 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d).

4 See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(3) (1995).

5 See USSG § 3B1.1(a).

6 See USSG § 3E1.1(a), (b).

7 See USSG Ch.5 Pt.A (sentencing table).

8 See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993).

 3