UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                  No. 97-5017

LORAS LEROY ROWAN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville.
G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-97-473-GRA, JR)

Submitted: August 4, 1998

Decided: September 2, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, and WILLIAMS,
Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. E. Jean Howard, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Loras Leroy Rowan was convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas to
conspiracy to commit bank robbery and bank robbery. Rowan's coun-
sel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

(1967), alleging that the trial court's Rule 11 1 inquiry was inadequate
and that the court erroneously calculated his sentencing range. Find-
ing no error, we affirm.

Rowan does not allege any specific defect in the Rule 11 inquiry,
and we find none. The court insured that Rowan understood the
charges against him and the nature of his guilty plea. The court also
advised Rowan about the rights he was waiving and the potential pun-
ishments he faced. Finally, Rowan informed the court that he was sat-
isfied with the performance of counsel, and he stated that he was
knowingly and willfully pleading guilty. We therefore find that the
trial court's inquiry satisfied the requirements of Rule 11. See United
States v. DeFusco, 

 (4th Cir. 1991).

Rowan likewise does not allege any specific error in the calculation
of his sentencing range, and we do not find any. 2 Moreover, this court
lacks authority to review correctly calculated sentences falling within
the appropriate statutory or Guidelines3 ranges. See United States v.
Porter, 

, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Fed. R. Crim. P. 11.
2 We note that Rowan did not object to his sentencing range at trial.
Therefore, our review is for plain error. See generally, United States v.
Olano, 

 (1993).
3 U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1995).

                    2
The 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 therefore affirm Rowan's convictions and sentence. We dis-
pense 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