UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

WILLY EMMANUEL, a/k/a William
                                                                     No. 99-4014
Belizaire, a/k/a Willey Emmanuel,
a/k/a Willie Emanuel, a/k/a William
Emmanuel,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(CR-98-120-2)

Submitted: February 22, 2000

Decided: March 2, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Eduardo K. Curry, CURRY, CURRY & CURRY, P.A., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Willy Emmanuel appeals from a 188-month sentence imposed fol-
lowing his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distrib-
ute cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994). Emmanuel's
attorney 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 issue: whether the district court
improperly sentenced Emmanuel under the sentencing guidelines for
cocaine base rather than cocaine powder, causing Emmanuel to
receive a higher sentence. Emmanuel has filed a pro se supplemental
brief.

Based on the superceding indictment, the terms of the plea agree-
ment, and Emmanuel's own admission during the Rule 11 hearing, it
is clear that Emmanuel pleaded guilty to possession with intent to dis-
tribute cocaine base. Furthermore, our review of the record indicates
that Emmanuel withdrew any objection to the court's sentencing him
under the guidelines for possession with intent to distribute cocaine
after negotiating with the Government a two-point reduction in his
sentence for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Olano,
507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993) (claim raised for the first time on appeal
cannot justify reversal unless the error is "clear under current law").
Similarly, we reject Emmanuel's challenge in his pro se supplemental
brief to the amount of drugs the court attributed to him. See United
States v. Gilliam, 987 F.2d 1009, 1013 (4th Cir. 1993) (Government
may prove drug amount, inter alia, by defendants' admissions at Rule
11 hearing or by uncontested findings in the presentence report). We
note that to the extent that Emmanuel holds his attorney responsible
for the sentence he received, such a claim is appropriately raised in
the context of a motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp. 1999). See United States v. Williams, 977 F.2d 866, 871 (4th
Cir. 1992).

                    2
We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
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. Coun-
sel'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 materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
