Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Paul GALLIMORE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-12
Citations: 401 F. App'x 820
Docket Number: No. 10-4449
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Paul GALLIMORE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 401
Pages: 820–821

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Paul GALLIMORE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-4449.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2010.
Decided: Nov. 12, 2010.
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.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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 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.