UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffery Austin MCNEFF, Defendant-Appellant, 218 F. App'x 260

PER CURIAM: Jeffery Austin McNeff pled guilty to one count of possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (2000). The district court determined that McNeff qualified for sentencing as an armed career criminal and sentenced him to the statutory minimum 180 months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel filed an Anders brief, in which she states that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but suggests that the district court erred in sentencing McNeff as an armed career criminal.

McNeff has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he repeats counsel’s assertion and raises other claims related to his conviction and sentence. We affirm. In considering whether the district court properly designated McNeff as an armed career criminal, this court reviews the district court’s legal determinations de novo and its factual findings for clear error. United States v. Wardrick, 350 F.3d 446, 451 (4th Cir.2003). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that no error occurred in applying the armed career criminal statute in this case. United States v.

Thompson, 421 F.3d 278, 284 (4th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 S.Ct. 1463, 164 L.Ed.2d 250 (2006). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We have considered the arguments asserted in McNeff s pro se supplemental brief and find them to be without merit. We therefore affirm McNeffs conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform McNeff, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.

If McNeff 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. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on McNeff. 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. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).