UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 95-5166

TODD MOORE,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.
(CR-93-162)

Submitted: November 30, 1995

Decided: March 21, 1996

Before WIDENER, HALL, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Lawrence H. Woodward, Jr., SHUTTLEWORTH, RULOFF &
GIORDANO, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellant. Fernando
Groene, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Todd Moore appeals his conviction and sentence of life incarcera-
tion for engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise and murder in
furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise. 1 Moore also received
concurrent sentences of 240 months for possession with intent to dis-
tribute cocaine and possession of cocaine base, 2 and 60 months for
using a firearm in drug trafficking.3 Counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), contending that there were
no meritorious issues to appeal because Moore entered a valid guilty
plea and was correctly sentenced pursuant to the United States Sen-
tencing Guidelines. Counsel advised Moore of his right to file a sup-
plement brief, but he has not done so. Finding no reversible error after
an entire review of the record, we affirm.

At the FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 colloquy, the district court thoroughly
questioned Moore to ensure he was competent to enter a plea and that
he understood the nature and consequences of his plea. Specifically,
the court inquired into Moore's education, mental health, use of drugs
or medication, and whether Moore understood all the rights he was
forfeiting by pleading guilty. Moore acknowledged that he understood
his rights, had consulted with counsel, understood the consequences
of his plea, and was freely and voluntarily pleading guilty. The plea
agreement should be upheld because Moore made an intelligent and
informed decision when he voluntarily pled guilty. 4

Finally, the district court properly sentenced Moore under § 848
and the federal sentencing guidelines. The district court may fix a sen-
tence at any point it deems appropriate within the guidelines range,5
and the appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review its decision.6
_________________________________________________________________
1 21 U.S.C. §§ 848, 848(E)(1)(a) (1988).
2 21 U.S.C. § 841 (1988).
3 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) (1988).
4 North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 31 (1970); Boykin v. Alabama,
395 U.S. 238, 242 (1969).
5 United States v. Roberts, 881 F.2d 95, 102-03, 106-07 (4th Cir. 1989).
6 United States v. Jones, 18 F.3d 1145, 1151 (4th Cir. 1994); United
States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).

                    2
Because Moore's base offense level was forty-eight and his criminal
category was II, Moore's applicable guideline range was life. The dis-
trict court sentenced Moore within the guidelines; therefore, this court
lacks jurisdiction to review the 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. Coun-
sel's motion must state that a copy 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
