UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

No. 94-5497

BEVERLY L. BURTON, a/k/a Beverly

Collins,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.

John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-90-276)

Submitted: June 20, 1995

Decided: June 14, 1996

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Michael R. Cline, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Michael L. Keller, Assistant

United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Beverly L. Burton violated one of the terms of her supervised

release by distributing crack cocaine, a controlled substance. Upon

her guilty plea, the district court revoked her supervised release and

imposed a twenty-four month term of imprisonment. Burton appeals

both the revocation of her supervised release and the sentence

imposed. Burton's counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he raised two issues but

stated that, in his view, there were no meritorious issues for appeal.

Burton was served with a copy of her counsel's brief and notified of

her right to file a supplemental pro se brief; she failed to do so.

Burton's counsel presented the following issues for review:

whether the district court erred in revoking Burton's supervised

release, and whether the twenty-four month sentence imposed by the

court was appropriate. However, counsel conceded that revocation

was within the court's authority under 18 U.S.C.§ 3583(e) (1988).

Burton's counsel noted that he examined the record of the proceedings and found no abuse of discretion in the revocation or the resultant sentence.

The district court must revoke the supervised release of a defendant

who possesses a controlled substance in violation of her supervised

release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g) (1988). At the revocation hearing, Burton did not contest the drug possession charges against her. The court

correctly found that Burton's possession of a controlled substance

constituted a Class A violation of her supervised release, and, in

accordance with section 3583(e), revoked her term of supervised

release. United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual,

§ 7B1.1 (Nov. 1994). Burton had a prior criminal history category of

IV. Therefore, the sentencing guidelines range for violation of supervised release was twenty-four to thirty months. U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4

(Nov. 1994). However, because Burton's underlying convictions were

for attempting to distribute and distributing a controlled substance,

both Grade C felonies, she could serve no more than twenty-four

months in prison as a result of the revocation of her supervised

release. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (1988). The court's imposition of a

 2
twenty-four month sentence complied with the statutory maximum

and the applicable guidelines range.

In accordance with Anders, this court has thoroughly examined the

entire record for any potentially meritorious issues for appeal, and

found none. Therefore, we affirm the district court's order.

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 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 the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the record and briefs, and oral argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3