UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4623

CLYDE SHIELDS BRYANT, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
James C. Turk, District Judge.
(CR-98-56)

Submitted: April 28, 2000

Decided: May 17, 2000

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

G. David Nixon, HUFFMAN & NIXON, P.C., Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant. Karen Breeding Peters, Assistant United States Attorney,
Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Clyde Shields Bryant, Jr., appeals the imposition of a sixty-three
month sentence following his guilty plea, pursuant to a plea agree-
ment, to wire fraud and money laundering. Bryant's attorney has filed
a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 

(1967),
claiming that the district court had the authority to modify his plea
agreement to allow him to appeal the assignment of one criminal his-
tory point for Bryant's prior North Carolina conviction for reckless
driving, and that the district court erred by assigning the criminal his-
tory point, but concluding that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have
examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
Consequently, we affirm Bryant's conviction and sentence.

Bryant does not dispute that his plea agreement stated that he could
not appeal Sentencing Guidelines issues. We find that Bryant made
a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to appeal such issues.
See United States v. Davis, 

, 186 (4th Cir. 1992). To the
extent that the district court's comments at the sentencing hearing
could be construed as modifying the plea agreement to enable Bryant
to challenge the criminal history calculation, the court was without
the authority to do so; we therefore decline to relieve Bryant from his
valid waiver of appeal. See United States v. Ritsema, 

, 399
(7th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we affirm Bryant's sentence and con-
viction. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing,
of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for fur-
ther review. If the client requests that such 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.
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the cli-
ent. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con-
tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2