Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Napoleon Goodson, IV, appeals the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion and reducing his sentence by twelve months, and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. Counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal and concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in reducing Good-son’s sentence by twelve months. Good-son has filed a pro se supplemental brief challenging the denial of his motion to reconsider the court’s order granting a reduction.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this ease and have found no meritorious issues for appeal or reversible error. We therefore affirm the district court’s orders for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Goodson, No. 3:93-cr-00471-JFA-1, 2013 WL 4017644 (D.S.C. Aug. 6, 16, & 22, 2013). This court requires that counsel inform Goodson, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Goodson 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 Goodson. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.