PER CURIAM. Edwin Lowell Mason appeals the district court’s order sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to criminal contempt of court. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 401, 402 (2000). In his appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Mason asserts there are no non-frivolous issues for appeal. The court’s repeated attempts to inform Mason of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief were unsuccessful. Upon our review of the record, we likewise find no meritorious issues warranting review.
Mason was advised of the nature of the charge, the potential punishment, and the rights he was waiving by entering a plea of guilty, and he knowingly and intelligently waived those rights and pled guilty. The sentence imposed by the district court was within the range established by statute, 18 U.S.C. § 402, and the Sentencing Guidelines were not applicable. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 1B1.9 (2003). In short, there is no basis for questioning Mason’s conviction or sentence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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 beHeves that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may 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 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED