By order filed 1/9/03, opinion issued 10/16/02

is withdrawn. Opinion is reissued as of 1/9/03
UNPUBLISHED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444447

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 v. No. 02-4040 

ERIC LAMONT WILSON, a/k/a Peanut,

 Defendant-Appellant.

4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444448

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. 

Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. 

(CR-99-633) 

Submitted: October 8, 2002 

Decided: January 9, 2003 

Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and 

HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. 

____________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

____________________________________________________________

COUNSEL 

James Barlow Loggins, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Harold Watson Gowdy, III, Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES

ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

____________________________________________________________

OPINION 

PER CURIAM:

 Eric Lamont Wilson appeals his conviction of one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a) (2000) and sentence to 188 months in prison and five years

of supervised release. We affirm.

 Wilson's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). In the Anders brief, Wilson's counsel

briefed two issues, both of which counsel ultimately concluded were

not meritorious: whether the district court fully complied with the

requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and whether the district court

erred in applying the sentencing guidelines. Wilson filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing the district court erred when it denied his

post-judgment motions seeking to withdraw his guilty plea, requesting bail, and requesting appointed counsel.

 We review violations of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 for plain error. See

United States v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 524-27 (4th Cir.), petition

for cert. filed, No. 02-5170 (U.S. Apr. 10, 2002). Under this standard,

we exercise our discretion only to correct errors that are plain, material, or affecting substantial rights, and that seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id. at 524

(citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993)). We

have reviewed the record and find no error.

 We review the district court's application of the sentencing guidelines for clear error as to factual findings; we review legal determinations de novo. United States v. Blake, 81 F.3d 498, 503 (4th Cir.

1996). We have reviewed the district court's application of the guidelines and find no error. Furthermore, we conclude the district court

did not err when it denied Wilson's various post-judgment motions.

2 
 In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and

have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Wilson's conviction and sentence. We require 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 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