UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.
                                                                      No. 99-4785
LUIS GUTIERREZ-SAENZ, a/k/a Ramon
Bravo,
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-99-128)

Submitted: February 24, 2000

Decided: March 3, 2000

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

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Walter C. Horton, Jr., United States Attorney, Arnold L.
Husser, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Caro-
lina, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Luis Gutierrez-Saenz appeals from his conviction of and sentence
imposed for reentry into the United States after having been deported.
Gutierrez-Saenz's attorney filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 

(1967), in which he argues that the sentence
imposed was excessive, but represents that there are no arguable
issues of merit in this appeal. Gutierrez-Saenz was notified of his
right to file a supplemental brief, but has not done so. Because the
sentence imposed was within the proper guideline range and we can
discern no error on this record, we affirm in part and dismiss in part.

Gutierrez-Saenz contends that the district court abused its discre-
tion in imposing the eighty-seven month term of imprisonment. We
find that Gutierrez-Saenz's guideline range was properly calculated
pursuant to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (1998). Because
Gutierrez-Saenz's sentence is within a correctly calculated guideline
range and does not exceed the statutory maximum penalty for his
crime, this court lacks authority to review the district court's discre-
tionary decision as to where to impose sentence within the guideline
range. See United States v. Porter, 

, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).

Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for potential
error and has found none. Accordingly, we dismiss that portion of the
appeal challenging the imposition of a sentence within the guideline
range and affirm the conviction and sentence in all other respects. We
deny counsel's motion to withdraw. 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 petition would be
frivolous, then counsel may again move in 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-

                     2
ment because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the deci-
sional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART

                    3