By order filed 1/9/03, opinion issued 10/16/02 is withdrawn. Opinion is reissued as of 1/9/03UNPUBLISHED
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____________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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____________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 hi s conviction of one count of possession with intent to distribute cocai ne 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 distri ct court fully complied with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, and whether the district court erred in applying the sentencing gui delines. Wilson filed a pro se supplemental brief arguing the district court erred when it denied his post-judgment motions seeking to w ithdraw his guilty plea, requesting bail, and requesti ng 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 co rrect errors that are plain, material, or affecting substantial rights, and that seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputa tion 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 districtcourt'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.
2In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record and have found no meritorious issues fo r appeal. We therefore affirm Wilson's conviction and sentence. We re quire 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 th at 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 or al argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres ented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3