Horace Bush appeals the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to sixty months’ 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 suggesting that the term of imprisonment imposed by the district court is unreasonable.* Bush was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so.
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Bush’s sentence is within the statutory maximum sentencing range, and the district court’s revocation proceedings otherwise comport with due process. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583 (2000). Moreover, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Bush to the maximum term permitted by statute. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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