UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4438

GLENN ALBERT STEWART, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.

Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CR-97-53)

Submitted: January 26, 1999

Decided: March 9, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Elgine Heceta McArdle, MUSSER & MCARDLE, Wheeling, West

Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Glenn Albert Stewart, Jr., appeals his sentence imposed after he

pled guilty to being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). Stewart's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in

her view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Although he was

informed of his right to do so, Stewart has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm.

The presentence investigation report (PSR) recommended that

Stewart be treated as an armed career criminal under the Armed

Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e) (1994), because he had three

prior convictions for burglary. The district court adopted the PSR's

recommendation, and sentenced Stewart to 180 months' imprisonment. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). Stewart's counsel raises the issue of

whether the district court erred in adopting the probation officer's

determination that two of Stewart's three prior burglary convictions

were offenses committed on different occasions and not part of a single criminal episode for purposes of sentencing Stewart under

§ 924(e).

Because counsel failed to object to the district court's application

of § 924(e) at sentencing, we review for plain error. See Fed. R. Crim.

P. 52(a); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Stewart

was convicted of felony burglary on December 7, 1989. On June 2,

1993, Stewart was sentenced on two felony convictions for burglary.

Although Stewart was sentenced for these two offenses at the same

time, these two convictions were charged separately and arose out of

two distinct burglaries that Stewart committed on different days, on

two different residences, and on two different victims. Because the

two burglaries occurred at different geographic locations on different

 2
days and involved two distinct victims and residences, the district

court did not plainly err in treating the burglaries as separate offenses

for purposes of determining sentence under 18 U.S.C.§ 924(e). See

United States v. Hobbs, 136 F.3d 384, 386-88 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

___ U.S. ___, 66 U.S.L.W. 3800 (U.S. June 22, 1998) (No. 97-9187);

United States v. Letterlough, 63 F.3d 332, 334-37 (4th Cir. 1995).

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

find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Because the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm Stewart's 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