Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Graham C. ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-09
Citations: 89 F. App'x 388
Docket Number: No. 03-4321
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Graham C. ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 388–389

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Graham C. ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-4321.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2004.
Decided March 9, 2004.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Edwin C. Walker, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jeanette Doran Brooks, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Graham C. Rogers was convicted by a jury of filing a false claim in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287 (2000) and sentenced to a sixty-month term of probation. He appeals the district court's denial of the Government's motion to revoke his probation. On appeal, Rogers's attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding there are no meritorious issues for appeal but asserting the district court's decision to continue Rogers's supervised probation was unreasonable because the court failed to consider alternative placements that would accommodate Rogers's mental instability. Though notified of his opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, Rogers has not done so.
After examination of the record, which documents the court's extensive dealings with Rogers's repeated violations of the terms and conditions of his probation, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to continue Rogers's supervised probation or in denying the motion to revoke his probation. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order.
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