UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 99-4234

GEORGE THOMAS COLEMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.
(CR-98-422)

Submitted: April 20, 2000

Decided: July 25, 2000

Before WILKINS, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jeffrey T. Twardy, Annandale, Virginia, for Appellant. Andrew
James McKenna, Eric James Markovich, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

George Coleman appeals his convictions and twenty-seven-month
sentence for interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle in violation
of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2312 (West Supp. 1999), possession of a vehicle
stolen in another state in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.§ 2313 (West Supp.
1999), and theft of personal property in violation of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 661 (West Supp. 1999). Coleman's attorney has filed a brief pursu-
ant to Anders v. California, 

 (1967), asserting that (1) the
district court erred in finding Coleman's confession was knowingly
and voluntarily given; (2) Coleman's confession was not corroborated
by other evidence; and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support
Coleman's convictions. Counsel concluded, however, that there were
no meritorious issues for appeal. Coleman was notified of his right to
file a supplemental brief, but he has not done so.

We find Coleman's confession was knowingly and voluntarily
given in accordance with both Miranda v. Arizona , 

(1966), and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3501 (West 1994). We further conclude
that evidence presented at trial corroborated Coleman's confession
and that there was sufficient evidence to support his jury convictions.
See Glasser v. United States, 

, 80 (1942).

In accordance with the requirements of Anders, we have reviewed
the record for potential error and have found none. Therefore, we
affirm Coleman's 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

                     2