Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne Maurice GREEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-27
Citations: 231 F. App'x 259
Docket Number: No. 07-4092
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dwayne Maurice GREEN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dwayne Maurice GREEN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-4092.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2007.
Decided: June 27, 2007.
John H. Hare, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Hunter Young, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne M. Green appeals the district court's order affirming a magistrate judge's revocation of Green's supervised release and imposition of a ten-month term of imprisonment. Counsel 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 questioning whether the magistrate judge abused its discretion in revoking Green's supervised release and whether the sentence imposed is plainly unreasonable. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion in revoking Green's supervised release. We further find the sentence imposed by the magistrate judge, and affirmed by the district court, was not plainly unreasonable because it is below the statutory maximum sentence of one year and within the advisory guideline range of seven to thirteen months. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir.2006), cert. denied — U.S. —, 127 S.Ct. 1813, 167 L.Ed.2d 325 (2007); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4 (a) (2005).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 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.