UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                         No. 95-5471
AARON THOMAS, a/k/a Kenny
Murphy,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.
(CR-94-169)

Submitted: May 16, 1996

Decided: May 31, 1996

Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, C. Cooper Fulton, Assis-
tant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appel-
lant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Miller A. Bushong III,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Using the alias Aaron Thomas, Kenny Murphy pled guilty to one
count of possession of crack cocaine with intent to distribute, 21
U.S.C.A. § 841 (West 1981 & Supp. 1995). He was sentenced to a
term of 300 months. Murphy's attorney has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising two issues but
stating that, in her opinion, there are no meritorious issues for appeal.
Murphy has been informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental
brief, but has not filed one. We affirm.

Murphy was arrested at the Greyhound bus station in Charleston,
West Virginia, after a confidential informant in Detroit, Michigan,
informed drug task force agents that Murphy had left Detroit on the
bus and was traveling to Charleston with 4.5 ounces of crack cocaine
and a 9 mm handgun. The informant said a juvenile was traveling
with Murphy and gave detailed descriptions of both men, their cloth-
ing, and a bag they were carrying, as well as Murphy's criminal his-
tory. When he was arrested, Murphy had 118 grams of crack hidden
in his clothes. The juvenile was carrying a loaded 9 mm handgun
which he said Murphy had given to him.

On the day of his sentencing, acting pro se, Murphy asked leave
to withdraw his guilty plea, stating that he had entered the plea in
hopes of being released on bond. The district court found that he had
shown no fair and just reason for withdrawing the plea and denied the
motion. The court then declined to depart downward under USSG
§ 4A1.3* as requested by defense counsel.
_________________________________________________________________
*United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.
1994).

                     2
We find no merit in the issues raised by counsel in the Anders
brief. It is well established that the district court's decision not to
depart is not reviewable on appeal. United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d
28, 31 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 819 (1990). Nor did the court
err in denying Murphy's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The plea
was entered after a thorough inquiry pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11,
and none of the factors listed in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245,
248 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 857 (1991), favored withdrawal.

Although counsel suggests that the Rule 11 inquiry was deficient,
we find no reversible error. The court did not inform Murphy in so
many words that he could persist in a plea of not guilty, but Murphy
was informed of his right to a trial and all associated rights. Murphy
was informed that he would be subject to supervised release but not
informed that a violation of supervised release could result in an addi-
tional sentence of imprisonment. Because the combined sentence of
imprisonment and supervised release which Murphy received was less
than the maximum term he was told he could receive, the error was
harmless. United States v. Good, 25 F.3d 218, 220 (4th Cir. 1994).
While there was no testimony establishing his intent to distribute the
crack, he possessed a quantity too large for personal use. In that cir-
cumstance, the quantity alone establishes intent to distribute. United
States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 879 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S.
926 (1992).

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in
this case and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm the sentence imposed by the district court. This court requires
that counsel inform her 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 peti-
tion 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 conten-
tions are adequately presented in the record and briefs, and oral argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3
