UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                No. 99-4152
FORREST MALKER, JR., a/k/a Pee Wee
Malker,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-98-279)

Submitted: October 8, 1999

Decided: October 27, 1999

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges,
and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Langdon D. Long, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Marshall Prince, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Forrest Malker, Jr., was convicted pursuant to his guilty pleas of
various offenses related to his participation in the armed robbery or
attempted robbery of three jewelry stores. Malker's counsel has filed
a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 

(1967), alleging
that the district court erred by failing to fully comply with Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 and by improperly applying the Sentencing Guidelines.*
Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief,
Malker has failed to do so. Finding no error, we affirm.

The facts of this case are straightforward and not in dispute. Malker
participated in the armed robbery of two jewelry stores and the
attempted robbery of a third. Police broadcast surveillance video from
the attempted robbery on a local television station, which led to
Malker's identification and arrest. Malker confessed to his part in the
robberies shortly after his arrest.

We give due deference to the district court's conduct of the Rule
11 hearing, and we will only vacate Malker's conviction if the court's
alleged violations of Rule 11 affected his substantial rights. See
United States v. DeFusco, 

, 116-17 (4th Cir. 1991).
Malker, however, does not allege any specific violations of Rule 11,
nor does our review of the record disclose any. The court fully
advised Malker concerning the nature of the offenses, the maximum
penalties, and the rights he was giving up. The court further ensured
that Malker's plea was knowing and voluntary and that there was a
factual basis for the plea.

Because Malker did not object to the court's sentencing calcula-
tions at trial, we review his sentence for plain error and find none. See
_________________________________________________________________
*U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1998).

                    2
United States v. Grubb, 

, 440-41 (4th Cir. 1993). Again,
Malker does not identify any specific errors, nor are any apparent in
the record.

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with
the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal.
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.

Accordingly, we affirm Malker's conviction 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