PER CURIAM:
William Gerardo Mena-Ruiz appeals his conviction and 68-month sentence, pursuant to his guilty plea, to illegal reentry as an aggravated felon, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a)-(b)(2) (2000). Mena-Ruiz’s counsel has filed an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). MenaRuiz asserts his federal sentence should have been imposed to run concurrently with potential sentences for state offenses that were pending at the time of his federal sentencing. This Court reviews a district court’s factual findings at sentencing for clear error and its related legal conclusions, including the application of the Sentencing Guidelines, de novo. United States v. Daughtrey, 874 F.2d 213, 217 (4th Cir.1989). Mena-Ruiz’s claim is meritless. There is no basis to conclude Mena-Ruiz’s federal sentence should have been imposed to run concurrently with sentences he potentially faced for state offenses pending at the time of his federal sentencing. See generally U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.3 (2003).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Mena-Ruiz’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 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