UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4651
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL O. SHELL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-95-105)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 25, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David W. Plowden, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. Elizabeth Jean Howard, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael O. Shell appeals the district court’s judgment
revoking his supervised release and imposing a prison term of
twenty-four months. Shell’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there were
no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising the issue of whether
the district court abused its discretion by revoking Shell’s
supervised release. Shell 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 Shell’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 Shell’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
- 2 -
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
- 3 -