Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quincy Aaron LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-20
Citations: 46 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: No. 01-5005
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quincy Aaron LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 46
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quincy Aaron LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-5005.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 9, 2002.
Decided Sept. 20, 2002.
Jerome P. Aquino, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. William Neil Hammerstrom, Jr., Paul J. McNulty, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Quincy Aaron Lewis appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000). Counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). The Government did not file a reply brief. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
On appeal, Lewis contends that his plea was involuntary and unknowing. In light of the district court's thorough plea colloquy, we conclude Lewis was fully aware of his rights and the consequences of his plea, and that his plea was knowing and voluntary.
Lewis next contends that the district court abused its discretion in accepting his plea because there was an insufficient factual basis to support it. A careful review of the record shows a sufficient factual basis for Lewis's guilty plea. Thus, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting Lewis's plea.
Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the record and find no error. Accordingly, we affirm Lewis's sentence and conviction. 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 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.