
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Curtis GORE, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-3077.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Sept. 25, 2006.
    David M. Lind, Office of the United States Attorney, Wichita, KS, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    George Curtis Gore, El Reno, OK, pro se.
    Jon S. Womack, Wichita, KS, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before MURPHY, SEYMOUR, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

MICHAEL W. McCONNELL, Circuit Judge.

George Curtis Gore appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and imposing a 10-month term of imprisonment. At the district court hearing, Mr. Gore admitted to violating the terms of his supervised release by failing on several occasions to participate in a drug treatment program and by failing to abstain from alcohol on one occasion. He has not retracted that admission or introduced any new evidence.

In accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Mr. Gore’s counsel has filed a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel and a brief stating that there are no grounds for appeal. In counsel’s brief, he states that Mr. Gore does not meet any of the criteria for review under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. Mr. Gore has not filed a brief indicating disagreement with his counsel’s position. Our independent review of the record reveals no grounds for relief under § 3742. Therefore, attorney Jon S. Womack’s motion to withdraw as counsel for Appellant is GRANTED, and the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 
      
       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
     