UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                       No. 96-4680

HARLEY LEE TAYLOR,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge.
(CR-96-232)

Submitted: March 11, 1997
Decided: April 24, 1997

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William F. Nettles, IV, Assistant Federal Public Defender,
Florence,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to a guilty plea, Harley Lee Taylor was convicted of one
count of receiving child pornography through the United States mail
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2) (1994). Taylor's counsel has
filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738
(1967),
challenging whether the district court erred in denying Taylor's
motion for a downward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines*
based on aberrant behavior. Finding no error, we affirm.

Pursuant to a sting operation, United States postal inspectors made
a controlled delivery of a video containing child pornography to
Tay-
lor's rural mailbox. Following the delivery, postal inspectors
executed
a search warrant for Taylor's home and discovered the partially
viewed video in his VCR. Prior to sentencing, Taylor filed a motion
for downward departure based on aberrant behavior. The district
court
denied the motion, stating that while the court had the authority
to
grant such a departure, the facts of this case did not warrant one.

Where the district court recognizes that it has the authority to
grant
a motion for downward departure, its refusal to do so is not
review-
able. United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 29-31 (4th Cir. 1990).
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. Coun-
sel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the
client.

We affirm the district court's judgment order. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately
_________________________________________________________________

*United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.
1995).
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
                                3
