Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Duane COLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-05-09
Citations: 34 F. App'x 120
Docket Number: No. 01-4958
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Duane COLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 34
Pages: 120–121

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Duane COLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 01-4958.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 3, 2002.
Decided May 9, 2002.
Mary Lou Newberger, Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, Lisa A. Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Donald Duane Cole appeals the district court's order revoking his term of supervised release and sentencing him to twenty-four months' imprisonment. Cole'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), raising one issue but stating that, in her view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal. Cole was informed of his opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
Cole claims that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a twenty-four month sentence because it exceeded the recommended sentencing range of six to twelve months set out in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") § 7B1.4(a) (2000). We review the reasonableness of a revocation sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995).
Based on our review of the record, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Cole to the statutory maximum sentence of twenty-four months' imprisonment. The sentencing ranges contained in Chapter Seven of the Guidelines are "non-binding, advisory guides to district courts in supervised release revocation proceedings." Davis, 53 F.3d at 642; see also United States v. Holmes, 283 F.3d 966, 2002 WL 441198, *1 (8th Cir. Mar.22, 2002).
As required by Anders, we have examined the entire record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. This court requires that counsel inform her 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.