US v. Galloway

Filing 920070129


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4419 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHANIEL TYRONE GALLOWAY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cr-00285-WLO) Submitted: January 25, 2007 Decided: January 29, 2007 Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas N. Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Randall Stuart Galyon, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Tyrone Galloway appeals his 360-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841 (2000), and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(e)(1) (2000). Galloway's counsel has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questioning whether Galloway's sentence was reasonable. Galloway was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. This court reviews the imposition of a sentence for reasonableness. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 260-61 (2005); United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546-47 (4th Cir. 2005). After Booker, courts must calculate the appropriate United guideline range, making any appropriate factual findings. States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). The court then should consider the resulting advisory guideline range in conjunction with the factors under 18 U.S.C.A. 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), and determine an appropriate sentence. sentence within the proper advisory guidelines Id. range A is presumptively reasonable. United States v. Green, 436 F.3d 449, 457 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2309 (2006). - 2 - The district court determined that because Galloway was over eighteen years a old and had at least he two was prior felony to convictions for controlled substance, subject sentencing as a career offender, resulting in an offense level of 37 and Criminal History Category VI. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual ("USSG") 4B1.1 (2005). His advisory guideline See USSG Ch. 5, object to the range was thus 360 months' to life imprisonment. Pt. A (Sentencing report Table). and Galloway to did the not presentence conceded factual allegations contained therein. The district court imposed a sentence of 360 months' imprisonment, which is within the appropriately calculated advisory guideline range of 360 months' to life imprisonment and is therefore presumptively reasonable. There is no evidence in the See Green, 436 F.3d at 457. that the sentence is record procedurally or substantively unreasonable. sentence was reasonable. We therefore find the In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Galloway's conviction and sentence. We also deny Galloway's counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel. This court requires that counsel inform Galloway, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If he requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then - 3 - counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Galloway. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials would decisional process. AFFIRMED - 4 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?