UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert James MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant, 133 F. App'x 903

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 concurrently. 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).