UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4871

EUNICE ARNETTA HARRIS SPARKS,

Defendant-Appellant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4233

EUNICE ARNETTA HARRIS SPARKS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.

N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CR-92-179)

Submitted: January 31, 2000

Decided: February 22, 2000

Before WILKINS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges,

and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, John W.

Stone, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Eunice Arnetta Harris Sparks appeals the district court's order

revoking her term of supervised release and imposing an active prison

term of eleven months. Her attorney has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), suggesting one

ground for relief but concluding that there are no meritorious issues

for appeal. Sparks has filed a pro se supplemental brief raising additional grounds for relief. We affirm.

I

Sparks pleaded guilty in 1994 to making a false bank loan application, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1014 (West Supp. 1999), and to

false representation of social security numbers, in violation of 42

U.S.C.A. § 408(a)(7)(B) (West Supp. 1999). She was sentenced to

fifty-two months in prison and a supervised release term of five years.

Additionally, restitution of $6817.54 was ordered. Her supervision

commenced on June 2, 1997. On July 31, 1998, her probation officer

filed a petition with the district court stating that Sparks had violated

two conditions of supervised release and that her term of supervision

should accordingly be revoked.

 2
Following a hearing at which Sparks admitted to the violations, the

district court revoked her term of supervised release and imposed a

prison term of eight months to be followed by an additional term of

supervised release. Sparks appealed.1 The government subsequently

confessed error and moved to remand for resentencing because the

second term of supervised release violated the rule of United States

v. Lominac, 144 F.3d 308 (4th Cir. 1998). We granted the motion and

remanded for resentencing.

The district court conducted a second hearing at which Sparks

again admitted to violating two terms of supervised release. Specifically, although she was not to open any checking accounts without the

approval of her probation officer, she added her name to a checking

account of her husband's in April 1998. While she was supposed to

be truthful when answering inquiries from her probation officer, she

did not disclose in a financial statement submitted to him in March

1998 that she owned a vehicle. Further, in June 1998, Sparks

answered her probation officer untruthfully when he asked her

whether she had opened a checking account or written any checks

since being on supervision.

In revoking Sparks' supervised release and imposing an elevenmonth sentence, the district court took into account such factors as

Sparks' criminal history, which included over eighty cases of writing

bad checks; her previously lying to the court about her criminal

record; her not having made significant progress in making courtordered restitution; her dilatoriness in performing required community service; and the nature of the violations with which she presently

was charged. The court concluded that a sentence of eleven months,

which fell within the guideline range of eight to fourteen months, see

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4(a)(1993), was appropriate. Sparks appeals from that decision.2 

_________________________________________________________________

1 This appeal was docketed as No. 98-4871.

2 The first appeal, No. 98-4871, has been consolidated with the second

appeal, No. 99-4233.

 3
II

A district court may revoke a term of supervised release and

require the defendant to serve an active prison term after considering

the factors set forth at 18 U.S.C.A. § 3553(a)(1)-(6) (West 1985 &

Supp. 1999). See 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3) (West 1985 & Supp.

1999). Counsel contends that the court abused its discretion by failing

to give adequate consideration to the factors set forth in § 3553(a)

before imposing sentence. We review the district court's decision to

revoke supervised release and to impose a term of imprisonment for

abuse of discretion. See United States v. Davis , 53 F.3d 638, 642-43

(4th Cir. 1995). Here, the court sufficiently addressed the § 3553(a)

factors in sentencing Sparks. See id. ("A court need not engage in ritualistic incantation in order to establish its consideration of a legal

issue. It is sufficient if . . . the district court rules on issues that have

been fully presented for determination. Consideration is implicit in

the court's ultimate ruling.").

III

Sparks' pro se arguments on appeal have no merit. In light of her

admission in open court that she violated the terms of supervised

release, her claim that she was not guilty of the violations is not persuasive. Her assertion that the district court was biased is wholly conclusory. Sparks' claim that she is now seriously ill, suffering from the

loss of vision in one eye and other maladies, and her explanation for

her less than exemplary performance while on supervised release do

not provide grounds for overturning the district court's decision.

IV

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in

this case and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the district

court's order revoking Sparks' supervised release and imposing an

eleven-month term of imprisonment. We deny counsel's motion to

withdraw at this time. This court requires that counsel inform his client in writing of her right to petition the Supreme Court of the United

States for further review. If Sparks 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.

 4
Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on

Sparks. 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

 5