Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert James MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-15
Citations: 133 F. App'x 903
Docket Number: No. 05-4166
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert James MURPHY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 903–904

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert James MURPHY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-4166.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 9, 2005.
Decided: June 15, 2005.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Robert James Murphy appeals the district court's order revoking his supervised release and imposing two concurrent twenty-month sentences and, upon release, an additional sixteen-month and four-month term of supervised release, to run concur rently. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting there are no non-frivolous grounds for appeal, but suggesting that the term of imprisonment imposed by the district court is unreasonable. Murphy has filed a pro se supplemental brief.
We review a district court's order imposing a sentence after revocation of supervised release for abuse of discretion. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). Moreover, because Murphy's sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum sentencing range, we review the sentence to determine only whether it is plainly unreasonable. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(4) (2000). Upon review of the record, we conclude that Murphy's sentence is not plainly unreasonable. We have reviewed Murphy's pro se supplemental brief and find no meritorious issues. Accordingly, we affirm.
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
Because the sentencing guidelines relating to revocation of supervised release have always been advisory, see U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual Ch. 7 Pt. A, the sentence in this appeal is not impacted by the decision in United States v. Booker, - U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).