US v. Galloway, No. 06-4419 (4th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4419 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus NATHANIEL TYRONE GALLOWAY, Defendant -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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 guideline range, making any appropriate factual findings. States v. Davenport, 445 F.3d 366, 370 (4th Cir. 2006). United 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 presumptively reasonable. advisory guidelines Id. range A is 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 convictions years for a old and had controlled at least substance, two he prior was felony subject to sentencing as a career offender, resulting in an offense level of 37 and Criminal History Category VI. See Guidelines Manual ( USSG ) § 4B1.1 (2005). U.S. Sentencing His advisory guideline range was thus 360 months to life imprisonment. See USSG Ch. 5, Pt. object A (Sentencing presentence report contained therein. Table). and Galloway conceded to did the not factual to the allegations 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. record that procedurally or substantively unreasonable. the sentence is We therefore find the sentence was reasonable. 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 representation. in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Galloway. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 4 -
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.
