UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                   No. 00-4077

JAMES LEROY RAGLAND, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CR-99-40)

Submitted: July 31, 2000

Decided: September 15, 2000

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN,* and WILLIAMS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Beth M. Farber, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Robert
P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Anthony P. Giorno, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
*Judge Murnaghan was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior
to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of
the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

James Leroy Ragland, Jr., appeals his conviction entered on his
guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (1994). Ragland noted a timely appeal and
his counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738, 744 (1967), in which he represents that there are no arguable
issues of merit in this appeal. Nonetheless, in his brief, counsel
addressed the possibility that the district court had committed revers-
ible error in conducting Ragland's Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing. Coun-
sel also suggested that the district court clearly erred in determining
the quantity of cocaine attributable to Ragland for sentencing pur-
poses. The time for filing a supplemental brief has passed and Rag-
land has not responded, despite being advised of his right to do so.
Because we find counsel's assignments of error to be without merit
and can discern no other reversible error in the record on appeal, we
affirm Ragland's conviction and sentence.

On appeal, counsel identifies no specific error in the district court's
Rule 11 hearing and our review of the record reveals none. The dis-
trict court conducted a thorough hearing, insuring that Ragland under-
stood the rights that he would forego by pleading guilty, the elements
of the charge to which he was pleading guilty, the penalties he faced,
the effect of supervised release, and the impact of the Sentencing
Guidelines. Further, the court ascertained that Ragland's plea was
voluntary and that a factual basis existed for his plea. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11; United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116-17 (4th Cir.
1991). Ragland's substantial rights were adequately protected by the
district court's proceedings. See DeFusco, 949 F.2d at 117. Neither
did the district court commit clear error in crediting the drug weights
contained in the laboratory report. See United States v. Love, 134 F.3d
595, 606 (4th Cir. 1998). The existence of a single internal inconsis-
tency in the report not related to the net weight of the controlled sub-

                    2
stance does not leave us with the "definite and firm conviction" that
the district court committed a mistake in determining the weight of
the cocaine attributable to Ragland for sentencing purposes. See
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
There is no reversible error in Ragland's conviction and sentence.*

As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the entire
record and all pertinent documents. We have considered all possible
issues presented by this record and conclude that there are no non-
frivolous grounds for this appeal. Pursuant to the plan adopted by the
Fourth Circuit Judicial Council in implementation of the Criminal
Justice Act of 1964, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (1994), this court requires
that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court for further review. If requested by the client to do so,
counsel should prepare a timely petition for writ of certiorari, unless
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous. In that case,
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.

Ragland's conviction and sentence are affirmed. Counsel's pending
motion to withdraw is denied. 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
_________________________________________________________________
*The court has considered and rejected the possibility of reversible
error in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, ___ U.S. ___, 68 U.S.L.W.
4576 (U.S. June 26, 2000) (No. 99-478).

                    3
t
