UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4925
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAHEEM LYNELL GALLOWAY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00025-WO-1)
Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 26, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Duberstein,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Lisa Blue Boggs, Assistant United States
Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raheem Lynell Galloway appeals his guilty plea conviction
for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2012). Counsel has filed a brief pursuant
to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there
are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether
Galloway’s 180-month sentence is unreasonable. Galloway was
advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he
has not done so.
We review Galloway’s sentence for reasonableness “under a
deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” Gall v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 41, 51 (2007). This review entails
appellate consideration of both the procedural and substantive
reasonableness of the sentence. Id. at 51. In determining
procedural reasonableness, we consider whether the district
court properly calculated the defendant’s advisory Sentencing
Guidelines range, gave the parties an opportunity to argue for
an appropriate sentence, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
(2012) factors, selected a sentence based on clearly erroneous
facts, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at
49–51. Galloway received a mandatory minimum sentence of 15
years, because of his status as an armed career criminal. See
18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) (2012). The district court listened to
the arguments of the parties, reviewed the § 3553(a) factors,
2
and adequately explained its decision to impose a sentence at
the bottom of Galloway’s properly calculated advisory Guidelines
range. Thus, we find his sentence was reasonable.
In accordance with Anders, we have thoroughly reviewed the
record in this case and find no meritorious grounds for appeal.
We therefore affirm Galloway’s criminal judgment. 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 Galloway requests that a petition be filed, but
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 Galloway. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3