UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 00-4078

ALFRED BARTLEY FLOWERS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
William L. Osteen, District Judge.
(CR-99-217)

Submitted: June 27, 2000

Decided: September 14, 2000

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

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Clifton T.
_________________________________________________________________
*Judge Murnaghan participated in the consideration of 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).
Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Caro-
lina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Alfred Bartley Flowers appeals his eighty-month sentence imposed
after he pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon,
in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (West 2000).
Flowers' attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. Cali-
fornia, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the court's calculation of
Flowers' criminal history category but stating that, in his view, there
are no meritorious issues for appeal. Flowers has filed a pro se sup-
plemental brief, challenging the calculation of his criminal history
category on a ground not raised in the district court. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.

Flowers' counsel questions whether the district court properly cal-
culated Flowers' criminal history -- specifically whether Flowers'
convictions for armed robbery and aggravated battery are "related"
offenses under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4A1.2, com-
ment. (n.3) (1998). Sentences for "related cases" are treated as one
sentence. See U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(2) (1998); United States v. Breck-
enridge, 93 F.3d 132, 137 (4th Cir. 1996). Cases are considered "re-
lated" if there was no intervening arrest and the offenses "(A)
occurred on the same occasion, (B) were part of a single common
scheme or plan, or (C) were consolidated for trial or sentencing."
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2, comment. (n.3).

As the district court found, the offenses were separated by an inter-
vening arrest. Flowers was arrested on the armed robbery charge on
July 18, 1974, and on the aggravated battery offense on April 26,

                    2
1977. Although Flowers asserts for the first time on appeal that he
was not arrested for the aggravated battery offense because he was
incarcerated at the time of the offense, we have found no support for
his assertion. We, therefore, find no error--plain or otherwise--in the
district court's decision to award three criminal history points for each
offense because the offenses were not "related" under U.S.S.G.
§ 4A1.2, comment. (n.3).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We, there-
fore, affirm Flowers' conviction and sentence and deny counsel's
motion to withdraw. 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 represen-
tation. 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
