UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                      No. 99-4442

JAMES HOWELL HAYNES,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-98-155, CR-98-156, CR-98-157)

Submitted: December 16, 1999

Decided: December 28, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and
BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Assistant
Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Walter C. Holton, United States Attorney, Douglas Cannon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

James Howell Haynes pled guilty to three counts of bank robbery,
see 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(a) (West Supp. 1999), three counts of armed
bank robbery, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 2113(d) (West Supp. 1999), and one
count of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime
of violence, see 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West Supp. 1999). Haynes was
sentenced to a term of 274 months imprisonment for the bank robbery
counts and a consecutive sixty-month sentence for the § 924(c) count.
Haynes' attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

(1967), raising three issues but concluding that, in his
view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Haynes was informed
that he could file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so.
After a review of the record, we affirm the convictions and the sen-
tence.

First, Haynes challenges the district court's denial of his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea to the § 924(c) count. The motion was made
four months after his guilty plea to offenses arising from three bank
robberies. Haynes alleged that he was innocent of the charge and had
entered the plea only to protect his mother, whom he expected to
refuse to testify against him. The district court found that Haynes had
not demonstrated a fair and just reason for withdrawal. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 32(e); United States v. Hyde, 

, 671 (1997).
Applying the test set out in United States v. Moore, 

, 248
(4th Cir. 1991), we find that the district court did not abuse its discre-
tion in denying the motion.

Second, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Haynes
brandished, displayed, or possessed a firearm during the offense, see
U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) (1998), despite
his later assertion that he carried a BB gun rather than a firearm.*
_________________________________________________________________
*The enhancement should not have been applied to the First Union
Bank robbery in conjunction with a consecutive sentence for the § 924(c)

                     2
Finally, we find that Haynes was correctly sentenced as a career
offender. See USSG § 4B1.1. Haynes had two prior felony convic-
tions for crimes of violence (burglary of a residence and escape)
which required a career offender sentence. See USSG § 4B1.2, com-
ment. (n.1); United States v. Dickerson, 

, 777 (4th Cir.
1996).

Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for revers-
ible error and found none. We therefore affirm the convictions and
sentence. We deny counsel's motion to withdraw at this time. 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, then counsel may again
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 argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
count. See USSG § 2K2.4, comment. (n.2). However, the enhancment
did not affect the guideline range and is harmless error. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 52(b).

                    3