UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 97-4425

RODNEY WASHINGTON, a/k/a Hotrod,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                             No. 97-4441

RODNEY WASHINGTON, a/k/a Hotrod,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-95-194)

Submitted: April 29, 1998

Decided: May 15, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Stephen T. Schachte, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. J.
Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Robert H. Bickerton, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Rodney Washington pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, see 21
U.S.C. § 846 (1994), and was sentenced to 108 months imprisonment.
His attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), raising several issues but stating that in his view
there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Washington was informed
of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not filed one.
After a thorough review of the record, we affirm.

Washington's counsel first suggests that the district court should
have reduced Washington's offense level under USSG§ 3B1.2 (Miti-
gating Role).1 Washington did not raise this issue at sentencing and
consequently has waived all but plain error review. See United States
v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). Because Washington stipulated
in his plea agreement that no mitigating role adjustment was war-
ranted, we find that the district court did not plainly err in failing to
make such an adjustment. Second, defense counsel argues that the
sentence was greater than necessary to accomplish the statutory pur-
pose of 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a) (West 1985 & Supp. 1998). Washing-
ton raised this issue below, arguing that the statute and the sentencing
guidelines required too harsh a sentence. However, Washington in
_________________________________________________________________
1 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1995).

                    2
fact was sentenced quite leniently,2 and we find that the district court
did not commit prejudicial error in complying with the applicable
statutes and guidelines.

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in
this case and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the convic-
tion 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 represen-
tation. 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
_________________________________________________________________
2 The district court reduced Washington's sentence below the manda-
tory minimum of 10 years by applying the safety valve provision, see 18
U.S.C.A. § 3553(f), USSG § 5C1.2, even though Washington failed to
cooperate fully (he failed a polygraph test and refused to take a second
test). While the government disputed the court's decision at sentencing,
it has not raised the issue on appeal.

                     3
