
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Artie PATTERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-4756.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 27, 2004.
    Decided March 12, 2004.
    Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Karen B.» George, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, 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    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.

Artie Patterson’s supervised release was revoked following his sale of crack cocaine. He was sentenced to thirty-six months of imprisonment. On appeal, his counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issue: whether the district court erred because it sentenced him outside the guideline range as calculated under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”) § 7B1.4, p.s. (2002).

As counsel concedes, this claim fails because sentencing ranges as set out in USSG § 7B1.4 are advisory and not binding. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 640-41 (4th Cir.1995).

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. 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  