text:                             UNPUBLISHED
  
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
  
  
                              No. 02-4988
  
  
  
  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
  
                                                Plaintiff - Appellee,
  
            versus
  
  
  FRED NEAL, JR.,
  
                                                Defendant - Appellant.
  
  
  
  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
  District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
  District Judge. (CR-02-23)
  
  
  Submitted:   May 20, 2003                  Decided:    June 19, 2003
  
  
  Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
  
  
  Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
  
  
  Scott Gsell, LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT GSELL, Charlotte, North Carolina,
  for Appellant.    Robert John Gleason, Assistant United States
  Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
  
  
  Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
  See Local Rule 36(c).
  PER CURIAM:
  
        Fred Neal, Jr., appeals his conviction and sentence for two
  
  counts    of   possession     of    a    firearm      by    a   convicted    felon,     in
  
  violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000).                      Neal’s attorney has
  
  filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
  
  (1967), raising one issue but stating that, in his view, there are
  
  no meritorious grounds for appeal.               Although notified of his right
  
  to do so, Neal has not filed a pro se supplemental brief.                         Finding
  
  no reversible error, we affirm.
  
          In the Anders brief, counsel questions whether the district
  
  court     erred   in    sentencing         Neal      to     ninety-six       months     of
  
  imprisonment.      We find that we have no authority to review the
  
  district court’s decision to sentence Neal to ninety-six months
  
  because this sentence is within the guideline range and is below
  
  the   statutory    maximum     sentence        of    ten    years.     See    8    U.S.C.
  
  § 924(a)(2) (2000) (setting forth statutory maximum).                             Because
  
  Neal’s    sentence     does   not       exceed      the    maximum   allowed      by   the
  
  Guidelines or statute, we will not review it on appeal.                      See United
  
  States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990) (finding
  
  challenge to court’s exercise of discretion in setting a sentence
  
  within a properly calculated guideline range not addressable on
  
  appeal).
  
        In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
  
  in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.                           We
  
  
                                             2
  therefore affirm Neal’s conviction 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 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
  
  
  
  
                                          3
  