
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Noel Edward PLUNKETT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-4189.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2001.
    Decided Oct. 19, 2001.
    
      Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, NC, for appellant. Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael F. Joseph, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Noel Edward Plunkett appeals the district court’s order revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to eighteen months’ imprisonment. Plunkett’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). Although Plunkett was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, he has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review the district court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s supervised release and impose a term of imprisonment for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). The district court abuses its discretion when it fails or refuses to exercise its discretion or when its exercise of discretion is flawed by an erroneous legal or factual premise. See James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.1993).

Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 2000), the district court may revoke a defendant’s supervised release upon a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant violated a term of his supervised release. Because the district court properly found Plunkett violated the conditions of his supervised release when he was convicted of driving while impaired and resisting a public officer, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his supervised release. Furthermore, because the sentence imposed is well within the limits prescribed by statute and by the United States Sentencing Guidelines, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Plunkett.

Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm the district court’s revocation of Plunkett’s supervised release and the ensuing 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.  