UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 99-4152

FORREST MALKER, JR., a/k/a Pee Wee

Malker,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.

Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.

(CR-98-279)

Submitted: October 8, 1999

Decided: October 27, 1999

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges,

and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,

South Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Forrest Malker, Jr., was convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas of

various offenses related to his participation in the armed robbery or

attempted robbery of three jewelry stores. Malker's counsel has filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), alleging

that the district court erred by failing to fully comply with Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11 and by improperly applying the Sentencing Guidelines.*

Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,

Malker has failed to do so. Finding no error, we affirm.

The facts of this case are straightforward and not in dispute. Malker

participated in the armed robbery of two jewelry stores and the

attempted robbery of a third. Police broadcast surveillance video from

the attempted robbery on a local television station, which led to

Malker's identification and arrest. Malker confessed to his part in the

robberies shortly after his arrest.

We give due deference to the district court's conduct of the Rule

11 hearing, and we will only vacate Malker's conviction if the court's

alleged violations of Rule 11 affected his substantial rights. See

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

Malker, however, does not allege any specific violations of Rule 11,

nor does our review of the record disclose any. The court fully

advised Malker concerning the nature of the offenses, the maximum

penalties, and the rights he was giving up. The court further ensured

that Malker's plea was knowing and voluntary and that there was a

factual basis for the plea.

Because Malker did not object to the court's sentencing calculations at trial, we review his sentence for plain error and find none. See

_________________________________________________________________

*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1998).

 2
United States v. Grubb, 11 F.3d 426, 440-41 (4th Cir. 1993). Again,

Malker does not identify any specific errors, nor are any apparent in

the record.

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with

the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

The 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.

Accordingly, we affirm Malker's conviction and sentence. 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