The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4866
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY NOAH BROWN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-01-423)
Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 3, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Noah Brown appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and imposing a prison term of eight
months. Brown’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were no
meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether the
district court abused its discretion by revoking Brown’s supervised
release. Brown was advised of his right to file a pro se
supplemental brief but has declined to do so. We have reviewed the
record on appeal and conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion by revoking Brown’s supervised release and imposing
a prison sentence. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642
(4th Cir. 1995) (providing standard of review). In accordance with
the requirements of Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Brown’s supervised release
and his 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
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -