UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Eugene GRICE, a/k/a Michael Ray Jones, Defendant-Appellant, 40 F. App'x 754

OPINION PER CURIAM. Michael Eugene Grice was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West 2000), and was sentenced as an armed career criminal to 188 months in prison. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e)(1) (West 2000); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.4(b)(3)(A) (2000). Grice now appeals. His 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 ground for relief but stating that, in his view, there are no meritorious grounds for appeal.

Grice was advised of his right to file a pro se brief, but has not filed such a brief. We affirm. The sole issue raised by counsel is that the district court did not comply with Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(

c) because the court did not explain the effect of supervised release to Grice. The court informed Grice that he was subject to a supervised release term of five years and explained that parole had been abolished. However, the court did not tell Grice that if he violated the terms of his supervised release, he was subject to an additional period of incarceration. Grice was exposed to a maximum term of life in prison. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(e)(1). The total sentence he received was 248 months (188 months in prison; sixty months on supervised release) — less than the life sentence to which he was subject.

We have held on similar facts “that failure to discuss the nature of supervised release is harmless error if the combined sentence of incarceration and supervised release actually received by the defendant is less than the maximum term he was told he could receive.” United States v. Good, 25 F.3d 218, 220 (4th Cir. 1994). We conclude that the error in this case, as in Good, was harmless. As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Grice’s conviction and sentence.

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 to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy of the motion was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before us and argument would not significantly aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED.