US v. Michael Gallimore, No. 10-4449 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4449 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MICHAEL PAUL GALLIMORE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00116-NCT-1) Submitted: October 21, 2010 Decided: November 12, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles H. Harp, II, CHARLES H. HARP, II, P.C., Lexington, North Carolina, for Appellant. Graham Tod Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael distribute 500 Gallimore grams or pled more of guilty to to hydrochloride, cocaine conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. ยงยง 846 and 841(b)(1)(B) (2006). The district court sentenced Gallimore to 169 months imprisonment. Gallimore timely appealed. Gallimore s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Gallimore s sentence. Counsel states, however, that he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Gallimore received notice of his right supplemental brief, but did not file one. to file a pro se Because we find no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm. Here, counsel does not assert that the district court erred in determining the applicable Guidelines range, and our review of the record reveals no error. Gallimore was sentenced to a term of imprisonment that fell within the middle of his Guidelines range, and we conclude this sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Gallimore, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Gallimore requests that a petition be filed, but 2 counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Gallimore. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
