UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-4400
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
AUDWIN L. DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.
(CR-97-331-3)
Submitted: October 30, 2002 Decided: November 8, 2002
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, S. David
Schiller, Assistant 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 sentencing Davis to twelve months of incarceration
for his violations of the terms of supervised release. Davis was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has
not done so.
We have reviewed the claims and find no abuse of discretion in
the sentence imposed. 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
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. Finally, we dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3