UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-4143
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AUDWIN L. DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-97-331)
Submitted: September 6, 2001 Decided: September 18, 2001
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James M. Nachman, NACHMAN & KAUFMAN, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellant. Stephen Wiley Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Audwin L. Davis appeals the district court’s revocation of
supervised release imposed pursuant to a conviction for possession
of a firearm by a controlled substance abuser. Davis’s attorney
has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S.
738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for
appeal. On Davis’s behalf, counsel contends that the district
court abused its discretion in finding Davis in violation of his
supervised release and in imposing a twelve-month period of active
incarceration. Davis has filed a pro se supplemental brief also
claiming that the district court abused its discretion.
We have reviewed the claims and find no abuse of discretion.
See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir. 1995).
In addition, we have examined the entire record in this case in
accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious
issues for appeal. We therefore affirm.
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 friv-
olous, 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. Finally, we dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3