UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-5236

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICHARD KENNETH GALLOWAY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,

District Judge. (1:05-cr-00251)

Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 1, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clinton L. Rudisill, RUDISILL & ASSOCIATES, PA, Marshall, North

Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States

Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant

United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Richard K. Galloway pled guilty to possession of a

firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)

(2000). He received the statutorily mandated minimum sentence of

180 months of imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised

release. Galloway’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there are no

meritorious issues for appeal and raising no specific issue in his

brief. Galloway has submitted a pro se supplemental brief. The

Government declined to file a brief. Finding no reversible error,

we affirm.

 Because Galloway did not move in the district court to

withdraw his guilty plea, any error in the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11

hearing is reviewed for plain error. See United States v.

Martinez, 277 F.3d 517, 525 (4th Cir. 2002) (discussing standard).

Prior to accepting a guilty plea, the trial court must ensure the

defendant understands the nature of the charges against him, the

mandatory minimum and maximum sentences, and other various rights,

so it is clear that the defendant is knowingly and voluntarily

entering his plea. The district court must also determine whether

there is a factual basis for the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1),

(3); United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir.

1991). Counsel does not specify any deficiencies in the district

court's Rule 11 inquiry, and our review of the plea hearing
*

The district court issued an alternative judgment imposing a

135-month sentence based on Galloway’s motion for a downward

departure. However, the district court is not authorized to depart

below a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment absent a

motion by the Government under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) (2000).

- 3 -

transcript reveals that the court conducted a thorough Rule 11

colloquy that assured Galloway’s plea was made both knowingly and

voluntarily.

 With respect to Galloway’s sentence, appellate courts

review sentences imposed by district courts for reasonableness,

applying an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States,

128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). A sentence within a correctly

calculated advisory guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.

United States v. Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 433 (4th Cir.), cert.

denied, 547 U.S. 1142 (2006); see also Rita v. United States, 127

S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding presumption of

reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence).

Our review of the record reveals no procedural or

substantive error with respect to Galloway’s sentence. Galloway’s

180-month sentence, the statutory minimum, is presumptively

reasonable. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5G1.2(b)

(2005) (stating that, where a statutorily required minimum sentence

is greater than the maximum of the applicable guideline range, the

statutorily required minimum sentence shall be the guideline

sentence). We therefore conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence.*
Melendez v. United States, 518 U.S. 120, 128-30 (1996). Because no

such motion was filed in this case, the alternative judgment is of

no effect. 

 

- 4 -

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record for any meritorious issues and have found none. We further

conclude that the claims raised in Galloway’s pro se supplemental

brief are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the district

court’s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform

Galloway, in writing, of his 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED