### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 01-4453



#  S AMMIEL AMONT M C C OLLOUGH , a/k/a Mont, a/k/a Sam,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-00-672-DWS) 

#  U NITED S TATES OFA MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 01-4454



#  S AMMIEL AMONT M C C OLLOUGH , a/k/a Mont, a/k/a Sam,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge. (CR-00-870-DWS) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 30, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL John H. Hare, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:Sammie Lamont McCollough pled guilty to one count of bank robbery and one count of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) & (d) (West 2000). He was sentenced to 160 months on each count, to run concurrently. Counsel for McCollough has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 368 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues on appeal but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. McCollough was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has failed to do so. McCollough seeks review of his guilty plea hearing for compliance with Fed. R. Crim P. 11. McCollough pled guilty to both charges before a magistrate judge. McCollough signed a written waiver of his right to have his plea accepted by the district court and verballyaffirmed that waiver at his Rule 11 hearing. Our review of the relevant hearing transcripts discloses that the court complied with Rule 11. McCollough also sought review of his sentence. The sentence was imposed within the sentencing guideline range as determined in the Presentence Report, to which no objections were filed. A review of 2 U NITED S TATES v. M C C OLLOUGHthe Presentence Report and the sentencing hearing did not reveal aninappropriate sentence imposed by the district court. Finally, the sentence was within the range prescribed by the statute of conviction.
In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the entire record inthis case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm McCollough’s conviction and sentence. This courtrequires 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 3 U NITED S TATES v. M C C OLLOUGH