UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-4636
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JAMES SIMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-93-279)
Submitted: December 30, 1997 Decided: January 15, 1998
Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville,
South Carolina, for Appellant. David Calhoun Stephens, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
James Sims appeals the district court's revocation of his
supervised release term and imposition of an eight-month prison
sentence, based upon Sims' admitted violation of the terms and
conditions of his supervised release. Sims' attorney has filed a
brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),
claiming that the district court abused its discretion in finding
violation of the terms of supervised release and imposing the
eight-month prison sentence, but concluding that there are no
meritorious grounds for appeal. Sims was notified of his right to
file an additional brief, which he failed to do. In accordance with
the requirements of Anders, we have examined the entire record and
find no meritorious issues for appeal.
Sims' claim that the district court abused its discretion in
finding a violation of the conditions of Sims' supervised release
is without merit, given Sims' admissions at the revocation hearing.
In addition, the district court sentenced Sims within a correctly
calculated guideline sentence range which was within the statutory
maximum penalty. As such, we will not review Sims' sentence. See
United States v. Porter, 909 F.2d 789, 794 (4th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, we affirm both the district court's finding of a
violation of the terms of supervised release, and its imposition of
the prison sentence on that violation. This Court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
2
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 dis-
pense 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