UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                       No. 99-4379

LARON GRIFFIN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge.
(CR-97-943)

Submitted: December 22, 1999

Decided: January 14, 2000

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

N. Elliott Barnwell, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Miller
Williams Shealy, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTOR-
NEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Laron Griffin pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with the intent
to distribute and to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine, 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 (1994). The district court initially imposed a 210-month sen-
tence. The district court thereafter granted Griffin's Fed. R. Crim. P.
35 motion to correct his sentence and, upon resentencing, reduced
Griffin's term of imprisonment to 168 months. Following the filing
of a timely notice of appeal, Griffin'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 raises the
following issues: whether the district court erred in refusing to admit
privileged statements made by some of Griffin's co-conspirators to
their respective attorneys in the absence of a waiver of attorney-client
privilege and of their Fifth Amendment rights, and whether the poly-
graph questions that were administered to Griffin prior to his resen-
tencing were overly broad and constituted grounds to reverse his
sentence. We have reviewed counsel's arguments, Griffin's pro se
supplemental brief, and the record, and we find no reversible error.

We have further examined the entire record in this case in accor-
dance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues
for appeal. This Court requires that counsel inform his client, in writ-
ing, 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 coun-
sel 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

                     2
