Van Róbala Garrett pled guilty to violating his supervised release and was sentenced to twenty-four months of imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issue: whether Garrett’s sentence was erroneous. Because we find that Garrett’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable, United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006) (stating review standard), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1813, 167 L.Ed.2d 325 (2007), this claim fails.

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of Anders, including the issues raised in Garrett’s pro se supplemental brief, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. We deny Garrett’s motion to reheve his counsel. 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.