UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                               No. 99-4521
EDWIN DAVIS, a/k/a Erving Davies,
a/k/a George Smith,
Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                               No. 99-4522
EDWIN DAVIS, a/k/a Erving Davies,
a/k/a George Smith,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia.
Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CR-99-33-DWS, CR-98-682-DWS)

Submitted: April 28, 2000

Decided: May 15, 2000

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Lourie Augustus Salley, III, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appel-
lant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Dean A. Eichelberger,
Assistant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Edwin Davis pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess
cocaine with intent to distribute, see 21 U.S.C. § 846 (1994), a charge
brought against him in South Carolina in No. 98-682, as well as three
counts of importing heroin into the United States, see 21 U.S.C. § 951
(1994), charged in Massachusetts in No. 99-33.* The district court
departed upward from the guideline range because the heroin was
unusually pure. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2D1.1,
comment. (n.9) (1998). Davis received concurrent sentences of
seventy-two months imprisonment. His attorney has filed a brief pur-
suant to Anders v. California, 

(1967), challenging the
departure but indicating that, in his view, there are no meritorious
issues for appeal. Davis has been notified of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but has not done so.

We have reviewed the departure and find that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in deciding to depart or in departing by three
offense levels. See Koon v. United States, 

, 96-100 (1996)
(providing standard of review).
_________________________________________________________________

*Davis consented to a transfer of the Massachusetts charges to South
Carolina.

                    2
Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for revers-
ible error and found none. We therefore affirm the convictions and
sentences. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writ-
ing, 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 coun-
sel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation.
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the cli-
ent. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con-
tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3