
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ricky Gene CARTER, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-4061.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 8, 2005.
    Decided: June 21, 2005.
    Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Jonathan D. Byrne, Appellate Counsel, David R. Bungard, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
    Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Joshua C. Hanks, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Ricky Gene Carter appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to twelve months’ imprisonment. Carter’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), representing that, in her view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Carter has been notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.

The only issue Carter raises on appeal is whether his sentence should have been below the applicable sentencing guidelines range of eight to fourteen months. A defendant is generally precluded from appealing a district court’s refusal to award a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines range. See United States v. Bayerle, 898 F.2d 28, 30-31 (4th Cir.1990). Moreover, because the Guidelines’ Chapter Seven policy statements are purely advisory, this court reviews a sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release and authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995).

The district court correctly determined Carter’s sentencing range of eight to fourteen months, and his twelve month sentence was within that range. As the sentence was not imposed in violation of law and the sentencing guidelines were properly applied, the district court did not abuse its discretion.

Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Carter’s sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her 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 
      
       Because the sentencing guidelines relating to revocation of supervised release have always been advisory, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, Ch. 7, Pt. A, the sentence in this appeal is not impacted by the decision in United States v. Booker, — U.S. —, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).
     