
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jeffrey Noah BROWN, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4866.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 29, 2004.
    Decided: May 3, 2004.
    David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
    David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    
      Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey Noah Brown appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing a prison term of eight months. Brown’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 the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion by revoking Brown’s supervised release. Brown 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 Brown’s supervised release and imposing a prison 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 Brown’s supervised release and his 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  