Joseph L. Hodge pleaded guilty to violating the terms of his supervised release. The district court entered an order revoking Hodge’s supervised release, and sentencing him to eleven months incarceration and twenty-five months of supervised release. Hodge’s counsel has filed an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), asserting Hodge was not competent to participate in the proceeding. Hodge’s claim is meritless. Hodge cannot show he was *145 unable to rationally consult with his lawyer, or unable to understand the proceeding against him. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per curiam); United States v. Mason, 52 F.3d 1286, 1289 (4th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court order. United States v. Hodge, No. CR-02-19 (M.D.N.C. July 2, 2002). In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. 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.

AFFIRMED.