UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                   No. 98-4306

WILLIAM VANDROSS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
(CR-96-524)

Submitted: March 31, 1999

Decided: May 3, 1999

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

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Eduardo Kelvin Curry, CURRY, CURRY & COUNTS, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Miller Williams Shealy, Jr., OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Caro-
lina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

A jury convicted William Vandross (Vandross) of the following
charges: one count of conspiracy to possess with the intent to distrib-
ute and to distribute crack cocaine and heroin, 21 U.S.C.A. § 846
(West Supp. 1998); one count of possession with the intent to distrib-
ute crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1981); five counts
of distribution of crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West
1981); one count of possession with the intent to distribute cocaine,
crack cocaine, and heroin, 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1981); one
count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 1998); one count of conspiracy to use unau-
thorized telecommunication services, 18 U.S.C.A.§ 1029 (West
Supp. 1998); and one count of unauthorized use of telecommunica-
tions services, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1029(a)(5) (West Supp. 1998).

Counsel for Vandross has filed a brief in accordance with Anders
v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Counsel states that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal but addresses the following issues:
whether the district court clearly erred when it sentenced Vandross as
an organizer or leader of the criminal activity; whether the district
court clearly erred when it found that Vandross was more than mini-
mally involved in the planning of the cellular phone cloning portion
of the conspiracy; and whether the district court clearly erred when
it enhanced Vandross' sentence for possessing a dangerous weapon
during a narcotics offense. Vandross, informed of his right to file a
supplemental brief, filed two briefs asserting several grounds for
appeal.*

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
_________________________________________________________________
*We grant Vandross' motion to file an addendum to his supplemental
brief.

                    2
the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
We accordingly affirm Vandross' convictions 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 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 ade-
quately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3
