UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 98-4596

LANDERS C. CHAMBERS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of South Carolina, at Spartanburg.

William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-96-612)

Submitted: November 18, 1998

Decided: December 10, 1998

Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and

HALL, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David W. Plowden, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Landers C. Chambers, Jr., appeals the district court's revocation of

his supervised release term and its imposition of a six-month prison

sentence, based upon Chambers' admitted violation of the terms and

conditions of his supervised release. Chambers' attorney has filed a

brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

claiming that the district court abused its discretion by imposing the

six-month prison sentence but concluding that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Chambers filed a supplemental pro se brief

repeating the argument raised in the formal brief and also arguing that

he did not violate the terms of supervised release. In accordance with

the requirements of Anders, we have examined the entire record and

find no meritorious issues for appeal.

After Chambers pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C.§ 287 (1996) by

making a false claim to the Internal Revenue Service, the district

court sentenced him to four months in prison followed by three years

of supervised release. While on supervised release, Chambers violated

the terms of supervised release by testing positive for cocaine and

marijuana. Chambers admitted the violation at his supervised release

revocation hearing. The district court sentenced Chambers to six

months in prison and Chambers timely appealed. We review a district

court's revocation of supervised release for an abuse of discretion.

See United States v. Copley, 978 F.2d 829, 831 (4th Cir. 1992).

Chambers' claim that the district court abused its discretion in finding a violation of the conditions of his supervised release is without

merit, given his admission at the revocation hearing. In addition,

Chambers does not dispute that the district court correctly calculated

his guideline sentence range, and the range was within the statutory

maximum penalty. Consequently, we will not review Chambers' 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 Supreme Court of the

 2
United States for further review. If the client requests that such 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 materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3