UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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, 
3

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