Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Lloyd LAMBERT, II, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-02-06
Citations: 55 F. App'x 656
Docket Number: No. 02-4743
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Lloyd LAMBERT, II, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 55
Pages: 656–657

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Lloyd LAMBERT, II, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 02-4743.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 30, 2003.
Decided Feb. 6, 2003.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Charles L. Lambert II, appeals the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing an eleven-month prison sentence to be followed by thirty-seven months of supervised release. Lambert's attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting that the district court abused its discretion in revoking Lambert's supervised release and imposing sentence. Lambert was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so. We affirm.
We have thoroughly reviewed the record on appeal, including the nature and extent of Lambert's supervised release violations, the probation officer's petition for violation of supervised release, and the transcript of the revocation hearing. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Lambert's supervised release based upon Lambert's admissions at the revocation hearing that he violated the conditions of release. See United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995) (providing standard of review); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000) (providing that district court need only find violation of supervised release condition by preponderance of evidence). In addition, we have reviewed Lambert's sentence for plain error and find none. See United States v. Carter, 300 F.3d 415, 428-29 (4th Cir.) (discussing standard of review), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 614, 154 L.Ed.2d 552 (2002).
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny counsel's motion to withdraw at this time. 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.