**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 4786** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. ERIC CONYERS , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Distri ct of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Frank D. Whitney , District Judge. ( 3:07

- cr - 0057

- FDW

- 1 )

Submitted : May 26, 2011 Decided: May 31, 2011

Before KING , SHEDD , and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Harold M. Vaug ht, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee

. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Eric Conyers appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing an 11

- month term of imprisonment. Conyers’ attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but question s the validity of Conyers’ sentence because the original indictment failed to specify a drug quantity. Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Conyers has not done so. Finding no error, we affirm.
C onyers pled gui lty in 1994 t o possession with intent to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (200 6 ) and was sentenced to 151 months imprisonment, followed b y five years of supervised release. Conyers’ term of supervised release originally began in 2005; however , his supervised release was revoked in 2007 and he was sentenced to 37 months imprisonment. Conyers again began a term of supervised release in December 2009. Conyers’ supervised release was revoked a second time, based on admitted violations of the terms of his supervision, and he was sentenced to 11 months imprisonment. On appeal, Conyers argues that , because the underlying indictment failed to specify a drug quantity , the term of incarceration the district court imposed exceeds the maximum of two years ’ imprisonment3 authorized for violations of a term of supervised release imposed as punishment for a Class C felony. See Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000) . Conyers raised the same argument in his prior appeal challenging the first revocati on of supervised release. Again, we reject this claim. See United States v. Aramony , 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999) ( noting that “ when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case” ). In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Conyers ’ sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Conyers , in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Conyers requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, counsel may move in this court for leave to withdr aw from representation. Coun sel’ s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Conyers
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIR MED