PER CURIAM.
Carla G. Graham appeals from the seventy-month sentence imposed after she pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute more than five grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). Her counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), raising two issues, but stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Graham was informed of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
Counsel raises as potential issues the district court’s assessment of a two-level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2Dl.l(b)(l) (2001), based upon Graham’s possession of a firearm and the court’s refusal to adjust Graham’s offense level under USSG § 3B1.2 based upon her role in the offense. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not clearly err in either regard. See United States v. Sayles, 296 F.3d 219, 224 (4th Cir.2002) (providing standard of review for role in offense adjustment); United States v. McAllister, 272 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2001) (providing standard of review for possession of a weapon).
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Graham’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her client, in writing, of her 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.