
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leon COLLINS, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-4973.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 24, 2004.
    Decided: June 29, 2004.
    Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Megan J. Schueler, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
    Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Paula S. Klotzbach, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, 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    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Leon Collins appeals the district court’s imposition of a twenty-one-month term of imprisonment, to be followed by a fifteen-month term of supervised release, upon revocation of his supervised release.

Collins’ 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 suggesting that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Collins. Although informed of his right to do so, Collins has not filed a supplemental brief.

We review a district court’s order imposing a sentence after revocation of supervised release for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 438, 442-43 (4th Cir.1995). Moreover, because Collins’ sentence does not exceed the maximum under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000), we review the sentence to determine only whether it is plainly unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (2000). Upon review of the record, we conclude that Collins’ twenty-one-month sentence is not plainly unreasonable.

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 Collins’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform her 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  