UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4830

FITZ MAURICE BELL, a/k/a Peedee,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem.

Frank W. Bullock, Jr., Chief District Judge.

(CR-92-239)

Submitted: March 13, 1997

Decided: March 24, 1997

Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William E. Martin, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette,

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Walter C. Holton, Jr., United States Attorney, Michael F.

Joseph, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Fitz Maurice Bell was sentenced to six months in prison following

a hearing to revoke his term of supervised release. Bell's counsel has

filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

challenging whether the district court abused its discretion by revoking the term of supervised release and whether the sentence is plainly

unreasonable. Finding no error, we affirm.

Bell was originally convicted of drug-related charges. While serving a term of supervised release, Bell's urine tested positive for morphine and marijuana, he failed to report to the probation officer, to

submit monthly reports, and to pay his fine, and he committed at least

one traffic offense. At the revocation hearing, Bell admitted to the

offenses. The district court applied the non-binding Guidelines found

in USSG § 7B1.4,1 and Bell did not object to the sentencing range of

three to nine months.

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Bell's term of supervised release. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(g)

(1994), the district court was required to revoke the release if Bell

possessed drugs, and Bell's admission to using drugs established

possession.2 We further find that the sentence imposed was not

"plainly unreasonable."3

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with

the requirements of Anders, and find no meritorious issues for appeal.

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

_________________________________________________________________

1 United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Nov.

1995).

2 See United States v. Battle, 993 F.2d 49, 50 (4th Cir. 1993).

3 See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (1994).

 2
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.

Counsel's current motion before this court to withdraw is denied.

We affirm the district court's judgment order. 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