UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                     No. 96-4356

GEORGE BLAKELY THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.
Richard L. Voorhees, Chief District Judge.
(CR-95-6-V)

Submitted: July 24, 1997

Decided: August 4, 1997

Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

McArthur D. Mitchell, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark
T. Calloway, United States Attorney, H. Thomas Church, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

George Blakely Thomas appeals from his conviction and sentence
for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of
cocaine and cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841, 846
(West 1981 & Supp. 1997). Thomas' attorney has filed a brief in
accordance with Anders v. California, 

(1967), address-
ing three issues, but contending that there are no meritorious issues
for appeal. Thomas was notified of his right to file an additional brief,
but has not done so. We affirm.

Thomas contends that his conviction is invalid because an investi-
gator with the Catawba County Sheriff's Department told him that if
he cooperated with law enforcement, he would not be indicted for
past or future drug activity. However, Thomas entered a voluntary
guilty plea and therefore may not attack antecedent non-jurisdictional
errors. See Tollett v. Henderson, 

, 267 (1973). Next,
Thomas argues that narcotic buys and sales after October 21, 1994,
should not be included in the amount of drugs attributed to him for
sentencing purposes because after that date he cooperated with the
authorities and made controlled narcotic buys. However, during his
sentencing hearing, Thomas admitted to purchasing crack cocaine
after October 1994 without the knowledge of law enforcement offi-
cials. Moreover, Thomas stipulated in his plea agreement that 1.5
kilograms of crack was known to or reasonably foreseeable by him
and the district court used this quantity in calculating Thomas' sen-
tence. Finally, Thomas claims that his conviction violates the prohibi-
tion against double jeopardy because at the time he was arrested, the
police seized $1,808 from him. This claim is meritless. Cf. United
States v. Ursery, ___ U.S. ___, #6D 6D6D#, 

, 4572 (U.S.
June 24, 1996) (No. 95-345) (civil in rem forfeiture following convic-
tion does not constitute double jeopardy).

In accordance with Anders, we have examined the entire record in
this case and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the convic-
tion and 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,

                     2
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