UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Gallimore pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute 500 grams or more of cocaine hydrochloride, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 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 to file a pro se
supplemental brief, but did not file one. 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 in this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Gallimore.
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
3