UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 98-4512

RICHARD L. LAWRENCE, III,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge.
(CR-97-94)

Submitted: March 23, 1999

Decided: September 23, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jeffrey L. Dorsey, Salem, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch,
Jr., United States Attorney, Karen B. Peters, Assistant United States
Attorney, Jennifer Haynes, Third Year Law Intern, Roanoke, Vir-
ginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM

Richard L. Lawrence appeals his sentence for mail fraud, in viola-
tion of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (1994), and money laundering, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (1994). Lawrence asserts the sentencing court
abused its discretion by denying him a reduction in his sentence for
acceptance of responsibility under U. S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 3E1.1 (1997). Lawrence voluntarily signed a plea agree-
ment in which he unambiguously waived his right to appeal Sentenc-
ing Guidelines issues. We accordingly find that Lawrence knowingly
and intelligently waived his right to challenge the district court's dis-
cretionary decision denying a sentencing reduction for acceptance of
responsibility. See United States v. Marin, 961 F.2d 493, 496 (4th Cir.
1992).

We grant Lawrence's motion to file a pro se supplemental brief and
his motion to file a pro se reply brief. A review of the briefs, the
record, and the applicable law reveal that the issues Lawrence raises
are substantially meritless. However, Lawrence is correct that the dis-
trict court's oral pronouncement of his sentence conflicted with its
written judgment. Therefore, the district court should amend its writ-
ten judgment to reflect its oral pronouncement that Lawrence was
sentenced to prison terms of fifty months on each of the two counts
to which he pled guilty, to be served concurrently, not fifty-five
months' imprisonment. See United States v. Morse , 344 F.2d 27, 29-
30 (4th Cir. 1965). We remand to the district court for that limited
purpose. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.

Accordingly, we dismiss Lawrence's appeal as to all Sentencing
Guidelines issues because such issues are waived in his plea agree-
ment. We affirm Lawrence's convictions and sentence to the extent
he asserts issues other than Sentencing Guidelines issues. Finally, we
remand to the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the

                    2
clerical error in its written judgment so it conforms with the oral pro-
nouncement of sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented before the court
and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART,
AND REMANDED

                    3
