United States v. Gill

51 F. App'x 458

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Freddie Lee Gill, Sr., appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months imprisonment. Gill’s 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 one issue but representing that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Gill has filed a pro se supplemental brief merely citing to 4th Cir. R. 36(c), * which we find meritless. Finding the issue raised by counsel is without merit and discerning no other error in the record below, we affirm.

Generally, we review the district court’s decision to revoke supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir.1992). However, because Gill did not object to the sentence in the district court, we review for plain error, see United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (finding relief available only if error is plain, affects substantial rights, and seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings), and find none. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir.1995).

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm the dis trict court’s order revoking supervised release and imposing 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, then counsel may move 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.

* Rule 36(c) states that unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.