Graham C. Rogers was convicted by a jury of filing a false claim in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287 (2000) and sentenced to a sixty-month term of probation. He appeals the district court’s denial of the Government’s motion to revoke his probation. On appeal, Rogers’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), concluding there are no meritorious issues for appeal but asserting the district court’s decision to continue Rogers’s supervised probation was unreasonable because the court failed to consider alternative placements that would accommodate Rogers’s mental instability. Though notified of his opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, Rogers has not done so.

After examination of the record, which documents the court’s extensive dealings with Rogers’s repeated violations of the terms and conditions of his probation, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding to continue Rogers’s supervised probation or in denying the motion to revoke his probation. We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

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