
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joseph David BOWDEN, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-4664.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 30, 2005.
    Decided Dec. 28, 2005.
    Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Joseph David Bowden appeals from the district court’s order revoking his probation and sentencing him to ten months of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. Bowden’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), representing that, in his view, there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising the issue of whether the district court’s sentence was reasonable. Bowden has been notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.

Bowden does not challenge the district court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation. The only issue Bowden raises on appeal is whether the district court’s imposition of a ten-month sentence upon revocation of probation was unduly harsh. The ten-month sentence imposed by the district court is within the statutory maximum. Furthermore, the district court considered the advisory guidelines in Chapter 7 of the Guidelines Manual, which based on a Grade B violation and an original criminal history category of I, provided a sentencing range of four to ten months. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4 (2004). The court also considered Bowden’s history and record on probation and sentenced him within the guidelines range to ten months of imprisonment. We find no reversible error in the imposition of the ten-month sentence.

Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny counsel’s motion to withdraw, and note that counsel must 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 renew his motion 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  