OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Joey Lamont Pryor violated the terms of his supervised release. The district court revoked Pryor’s supervised release and sentenced him to twenty-four months incarceration. Pryor’s attorney has filed a timely appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
Pryor asserts that his twenty-four month sentence is excessive, and that the district court should have sentenced him in accordance with the policy statements set forth in U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 7B1.4 (1998). In reviewing a district court’s application of the sentencing guidelines, we review factual determinations for clear error, legal questions de novo, and mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under a standard that gives due deference to the district court. United States v. Male, 101 F.3d 1000, 1003 (4th Cir.1996). Pryor’s challenge to his sentence is meritless. The district court was not bound by Chapter 7 of the sentencing guidelines, and Pryor cannot establish his twenty-four month sentence was erroneous. 18 U.S.C. § 2583(e)(3); United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642 (4th Cir.1995).
Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Pryor’s supervised release, and his sentence of twenty-four months incarceration. 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.
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 in the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.