CORRECTED OPINION

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                         No. 98-4290
CHRISTOPHER G. RICHARDS, a/k/a
Chris Richards, a/k/a Christopher
Richardson,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Solomon Blatt, Jr., Senior District Judge.
(CR-96-733)

Submitted: August 24, 1999

Decided: October 1, 1999

Corrected opinion filed: October 29, 1999

Before ERVIN,* HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed as amended by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

CHANGE TO TEXT OF OPINION
_________________________________________________________________

*Judge Ervin participated in the consideration of this case but died
prior to the time the amended decision was filed. The amended decision
is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
COUNSEL

Capers G. Barr, III, BARR, UNGER & MCINTOSH, L.L.C.,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Hayden Bickerton,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Christopher G. Richards appeals his convictions and sixty-month
sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana
and distribution of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West
Supp. 1999) and for money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) & (a)(1)(B)(i) (West Supp. 1999). Richards' attor-
ney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

(1967), asserting that the court erred in failing to find Richards eligi-
ble for sentencing under the "safety valve" provision, U. S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual § 5C1.2 (1995), and that the court erred in sen-
tencing Richards to a concurrent term of sixty months' imprisonment
for money laundering.* Counsel concluded, however, that there were
no meritorious issues for appeal. Richards was notified of his right to
file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

We find that the district court did not plainly err in declining to
sentence Richards under the "safety valve" provision of the Sentenc-
ing Guidelines. See United States v. Hanno, 

, 45 (4th Cir.
1994). Other than Richards' own conclusory assertion that he was eli-
_________________________________________________________________
*Although counsel raises this issue in reference to both the case on
appeal and United States v. Richards, No. 98-CR-3 (D.S.C. April 4,
1998), we only consider the issue as it relates to the case on appeal.

                    2
gible for sentencing under the "safety valve" provision, there was no
evidence that Richards qualified for sentencing pursuant to USSG
§ 5C1.2. In addition, the court properly sentenced Richards in accord
with the Sentencing Guidelines, and therefore did not plainly err in
sentencing him to sixty months' imprisonment on both counts to run
concurrently. See USSG § 5G1.2(c).

In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have reviewed
the record for potential error and have found none. Therefore, we
affirm Richards' convictions 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, but counsel believes that such a peti-
tion would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave
to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a
copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argu-
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the
decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3