UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4033

RUFUS SAMUEL GREENE, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston.

Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge.

(CR-90-108)

Submitted: November 7, 1996

Decided: November 21, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Hunt L. Charach, Federal Public Defender, C. Cooper Fulton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Stephanie D. Thacker,

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Rufus Samuel Greene appeals the revocation of his supervised

release and the twenty-four month sentence he thereafter received.

Greene's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising two issues: (1) whether Greene's

supervised release should have been revoked rather than placing him

on home detention with electronic monitoring; and (2) whether it was

error for the district court to sentence Greene outside the sentencing

range recommended in a policy statement of the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("Guidelines").* Greene was notified of his right

to file an additional brief, but failed to do so.

We find no support for the proposition that the district court erred

by revoking Greene's supervised release and sentencing him to

twenty-four months of incarceration, under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3583(e)(3)

(West Supp. 1996), rather than modifying his release and placing him

on home detention with electronic monitoring under§ 3583(e)(4).

The Guidelines provide that a court may revoke supervised release

upon a finding of a Grade C violation. USSG § 7B1.3, p.s. Greene

admitted committing a Grade C violation of his supervised release.

The guideline range provided in Chapter Seven is eight to fourteen

months for a Grade C violation and a Criminal History Category of

VI. USSG § 7B1.4, p.s. Because the policy statements on which

Greene relies are not binding on the courts, United States v. Davis, 53

F.3d 638, 649 (4th Cir. 1995), and because he was sentenced within

the statutory range, we find no error in the district court's sentence of

twenty-four months.

_________________________________________________________________

*See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual,

USSG § 7B1.4, p.s. (Nov. 1995).

 2
As required by Anders, we have independently reviewed the record

and all pertinent documents. We have considered all possible issues

presented, and we conclude that there are no nonfrivolous grounds for

appeal. Because the record discloses no reversible error, we affirm

Greene's sentence.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his

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 materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3