
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mitchell GATEWOOD, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-4187.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 21, 2003.
    Decided March 25, 2004.
    
      Richard A. Culler, Culler & Culler, P.A., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, 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    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.

Mitchell Gatewood appeals from the district court’s order revolting his supervised release and imposing an eleven-month prison term. Gatewood’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising two issues: (1) whether the district judge failed to consider the availability of substance abuse treatment programs before revoking Gatewood’s supervised release; and (2) whether the imposition of an eleven-month sentence was unreasonable. Gatewood 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 Gate-wood’s supervised release and imposing an eleven-month 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 Gatewood’s supervised release and eleven-month 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 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  