Damion Damone Jackson appeals from the district court’s order revoking his supervised release and imposing a twelvemonth and one-day term of imprisonment. * 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 one issue: whether the sentence is plainly unreasonable. Jackson was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

We find that Jackson’s sentence, imposed within his properly-calculated advisory sentencing range, is not plainly unreasonable. See United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 437 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing review standard), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 1813, 167 L.Ed.2d 325 (2007); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) (2000); U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 7B1.4(a), p.s. (2006) (revocation table).

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. 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.