UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TOMMY HENDERSON, a/k/a Tommie

Henderson, a/k/a Thomas A.  No. 03-4501

Henderson, a/k/a Tom Lamont

Henderson, a/k/a Tommy Lemont

Henderson, a/k/a Tommy Lamont

Henderson,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.

Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.

(CR-02-826)

Submitted: November 19, 2003

Decided: December 8, 2003

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Lee Ellis Berlinsky, OFFICE OF THE
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 

Tommy Henderson pled guilty to one count of possession with

intent to distribute and distribution of five grams or more of crack

cocaine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (2000), and was sentenced to 254

months imprisonment. Henderson’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing

whether the district court properly accepted Henderson’s guilty plea

and properly calculated his sentence. Counsel concedes, however, that

there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although advised of his

right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Henderson has not done so.

Neither claim presented by counsel was preserved in the district

court. Therefore, they are reviewed for plain error. See United States

v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 526-27 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 123 S. Ct.

200 (2002). First, Henderson asserts that the district court failed to

comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 in accepting his guilty plea. Our

review of the transcript of Henderson’s guilty plea hearing discloses

that the district court fully complied with Rule 11. Therefore, we deny

relief on this claim. 

Next, Henderson asserts that the district court erred in calculating

his sentence. However, our review of the district court’s application

of the sentencing guidelines discloses no error. Henderson’s sentence

did not exceed the statutory maximum and was within a properly calculated guideline range. Accordingly, we deny relief on this claim as

well. 

2 UNITED STATES v. HENDERSON
Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm Henderson’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 in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

UNITED STATES v. HENDERSON 3