
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carrie Jean LAZURICK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-4531.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 6, 2002.
    Decided Dec. 2, 2002.
    Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS, DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Carrie Jean Lazuriek appeals the district court’s amended judgment revoking her probation and imposing a nine month term of imprisonment. Lazuriek’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), claiming there are no meritorious issues on appeal but stating the court may have abused its discretion by imposing a term of imprisonment. Although advised of her right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Lazuriek has not done so. We affirm.

Upon finding a probation violation, the district court may revoke probation and resentence the defendant to any sentence within the statutory maximum for the original offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3565(a)(2000); United States v. Schaefer, 120 F.3d 505, 507 (4th Cir.1997). Lazuriek admitted to three Grade C violations of probation. The district court found Lazur-ick committed a fourth Grade C violation. Because the district court imposed a sentence within the properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines’ range of imprisonment, there was no abuse of discretion. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a) (2000).

Pursuant to Anders, this court has reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm the district court’s order revoking Lazurick’s probation and imposing a nine month term of imprisonment. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of her 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 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.  