UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                     No. 97-4891
WESTON WAVE WILLIAMS, a/k/a
Diamond,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.
James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CR-96-70-H-C)

Submitted: September 30, 1998

Decided: October 28, 1998

Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

H. David O'Donnell, GREEN & O'DONNELL, Harrisonburg, Vir-
ginia, for Appellant. Thomas Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United
States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Weston Wave Williams appeals his conviction and the sentence he
received after he pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.§§ 841(a)(1), 846
(1994). The court sentenced Williams to 210 months' imprisonment
and five years of supervised release. Williams's counsel has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
raising two issues but stating that, in his view, there are no meritori-
ous issues for appeal. Williams's counsel provided him with a copy
of the Anders brief and informed him of his right to file a pro se sup-
plemental brief but Williams has failed to file a brief on his behalf.

Williams's counsel first questions whether the district court com-
plied with the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Crimi-
nal Procedure when taking Williams's plea. We accord great
deference to the district court's conduction of the Rule 11 hearing,
and evaluate alleged Rule 11 violations under a harmless error standard.1
We will vacate a conviction resulting from a guilty plea only if the
trial court's violation of Rule 11 affected a defendant's substantial
rights.2 Following a de novo review of the entire record, we conclude
that the district court complied with all the mandates of Rule 11 in
accepting Williams's guilty plea by fully discussing the nature and
elements of the charge against Williams, the applicable penalties he
faced, including the effect of supervised release, and ensuring that he
consulted with and was satisfied with his counsel. The court also
addressed the rights Williams forfeited by virtue of his plea, the
impact of the Sentencing Guidelines, and ascertained that there was
a factual basis for the plea. Finally, the court questioned Williams to
_________________________________________________________________
1 See United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116-17 (4th Cir. 1991).

2 Id. at 117.

                     2
ensure that his plea was voluntary.3 Accordingly, we find no violation
of Rule 11, much less one that affected Williams's substantial rights.

Counsel also disputes whether Williams's sentence was properly
calculated. The only contested issue was an enhancement for posses-
sion of a firearm, which the district court found inapplicable. Pursuant
to his plea agreement, Williams was held accountable at sentencing
for the stipulated drug amount of 150-500 grams of cocaine base. This
corresponds to a base offense level of 34.4 After adjusting Williams's
base offense level for his leadership role in the offense (a four-level
enhancement)5 and for acceptance of responsibility (a three-level
reduction),6 the court calculated a total offense level of 35. This, com-
bined with Williams's criminal history category of II, resulted in an
imprisonment range of 188-235 months.7 Because Williams's sen-
tence of 210 months' imprisonment is within the applicable sentenc-
ing guidelines range, we find no plain error in Williams's properly
computed sentence.8

As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and
find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm
Williams's conviction 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 adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
3 See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d).
4 See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1(c)(3) (1995).

5 See USSG § 3B1.1(a).
6 See USSG § 3E1.1(a), (b).
7 See USSG Ch.5 Pt.A (sentencing table).

8 See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37 (1993).

                     3
