UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4934
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES ANDRE MATTISON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (CR-95-368)
Submitted: October 1, 2004 Decided: October 20, 2004
Before KING, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Bradley Bennett, SALVINI & BENNETT, LLC, Greenville, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Regan Alexandra Pendleton, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Andre Mattison appeals from the order of the
district court revoking his supervised release and sentencing him
to thirty months of imprisonment. Finding no error, we affirm.
In his appeal, filed pursuant to Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738 (1967), Mattison claims that the district court erred
in revoking his supervised release. We review this claim for an
abuse of discretion. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638,
642-43 (4th Cir. 1995). Although Mattison alleges there was
insufficient evidence to support the district court’s finding of a
Grade A violation of his supervised release, he concedes on appeal
that he was convicted of the new criminal activity. On the basis
of this concession, we cannot conclude that the district court
abused its discretion in revoking Mattison’s supervised release or
in imposing a thirty-month sentence.
Finding no meritorious issues upon our review of the
record, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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. We dispense with oral argument because
- 2 -
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -