UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. United
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. Id. A
sentence within the proper advisory guidelines range 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 old and had at least two prior felony
convictions for a controlled substance, he was subject to
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
range was thus 360 months’ to life imprisonment. See USSG Ch. 5,
Pt. A (Sentencing Table). Galloway did not object to the
presentence report and conceded to the 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. See Green, 436 F.3d at 457.
There is no evidence in the record that the sentence is
procedurally or substantively unreasonable. 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 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 contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -