UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4187
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MITCHELL GATEWOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-96-177)
Submitted: November 21, 2003 Decided: March 25, 2004
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard A. Culler, CULLER & CULLER, P.A., Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mitchell Gatewood appeals from the district court’s order
revoking his supervised release and imposing an eleven-month prison
term. Gatewood’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 two issues: (1) whether
the district judge failed to consider the availability of substance
abuse treatment programs before revoking Gatewood’s supervised
release; and (2) whether the imposition of an eleven-month sentence
was unreasonable. Gatewood 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
Gatewood’s supervised release and imposing an eleven-month
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 Gatewood’s supervised release and eleven-month
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
- 2 -
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
- 3 -