UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                       No. 00-4006
MARSHAL WADDELL, III, a/k/a Pee
Wee,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.
(CR-99-132)

Submitted: September 21, 2000

Decided: October 2, 2000

Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Walter L. Jones, CLIFFORD, CLENDENIN, O'HALE & JONES,
L.L.P., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Walter C. Holton,
Jr., United States Attorney, Sandra J. Hairston, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Marshal Waddell, III, pled guilty to conspiracy to deliver cocaine
and was sentenced to 235 months' imprisonment. Waddell's attorney
has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 

(1967). Counsel states there are no meritorious grounds for
appeal but raises an issue relating to Waddell's sentence. Although
Waddell was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, he has
not done so.

The issue raised by counsel in the Anders brief is that the district
court clearly erred by denying Waddell a downward adjustment under
the United States Sentencing Guidelines for acceptance of responsi-
bility. See USSG § 3E1.1 (1998). Counsel also states in his Anders
brief, however, that Waddell expressly waived his right to appeal any
sentence imposed in his written plea agreement and at the Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11 plea hearing. Thus, there is no allegation that Waddell's
waiver of appellate rights hearing was not knowing and voluntary.
Because Waddell validly waived his right to appeal his sentence and
because his sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum, we
decline to address the sentencing issue raised in counsel's Anders
brief.

In accordance with the requirements of Anders , we have examined
the entire record in this case, including the transcript of the Rule 11
colloquy and sentencing hearing, and find no meritorious issues for
appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Waddell's conviction and sentence.
This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition to 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.

                    2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
d