UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                  No. 98-4130

WESLEY CASEY PATTON,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-97-648)

Submitted: August 18, 1998

Decided: September 10, 1998

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. E. Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Following a jury trial, Wesley Patton was convicted of being a con-
victed felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 922(g)(1) (1994). The district court sentenced Patton to imprison-
ment for 327 months. His attorney filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), addressing whether there
was sufficient evidence to sustain Patton's conviction and whether the
district court properly imposed Patton's sentence under the Sentenc-
ing Guidelines. Counsel asserts that there are no meritorious grounds
for appeal. Patton was informed of his right to file a pro se supple-
mental brief, which he failed to file. Because our review of the entire
record reveals no reversible error, we affirm.

Patton contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his
conviction. To sustain a conviction the evidence, viewed in a light
most favorable to the government, must be sufficient for a rational
jury to find the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt. See United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d 1430, 1437 (4th Cir.
1993). At trial, three witnesses testified that they saw Patton in pos-
session of a sawed-off shotgun the night he was arrested. In addition,
a police bloodhound handler's testimony provided circumstantial evi-
dence that Patton had possessed the sawed-off shotgun found in the
woods on the night of his arrest. From this evidence we find that a
jury could reasonably find that Patton had possessed a sawed-off shot-
gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).*

Patton next asserts that the district court erred in calculating his
offense level and sentencing him to 327 months' imprisonment. The
district court correctly interpreted and applied the guidelines in ascer-
taining Patton's total offense level of 34, criminal history category of
_________________________________________________________________
*Patton stipulated prior to trial that he was a convicted felon.

                    2
VI, and sentence range of 262-327 months. Because Patton's sentence
is within the applicable guideline range and the statutory maximum
penalty for his crime, this court lacks authority to review his sentence.
See United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in
these cases and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm Patton's
conviction and 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 repre-
sentation. See Local Rule 46(d). Counsel's motion must state that a
copy thereof was served on the client. See id. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pre-
sented in the materials before the court, and oral argument would not
aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3
