UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4331

MICHAEL EUGENE MILLER,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
James P. Jones, District Judge.
(CR-98-4)

Submitted: November 30, 1999

Decided: January 13, 2000

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Monroe Jamison, Jr., Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P.
Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, S. Randall Ramseyer, Assistant
United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Michael Eugene Miller pled guilty to sending threatening commu-
nications through the mail, 18 U.S.C.A. § 876 (West Supp. 1999),
threatening to murder a United States magistrate judge, 18 U.S.C.
§ 115(a)(1)(B) (1994), and escaping from federal custody, 18 U.S.C.
§ 751(a) (1994). The district court imposed a forty-six month sen-
tence. Following the filing of a timely notice of appeal, Miller's attor-
ney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967). In his brief, counsel states that there are no meritorious
grounds for appeal, but raises the following issue: whether the district
court imposed sentence in contravention of law or the sentencing
guidelines. We have reviewed the record and find that the district
court did not clearly err in imposing sentence, including the reduction
in sentence for Miller's acceptance of responsibility. See United
States v. Miller, 77 F.3d 71, 74 (4th Cir. 1996).

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
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 thereof was served on the client.

We deny Miller's motions for the appointment of counsel, for the
appointment of a private investigator, and for an injunction challeng-
ing his prison conditions. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materi-
als before the court and argument would not aid the decisional pro-
cess.

AFFIRMED

                     2
