United States v. Angelo Galloway

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: October 21, 2025
• Docket: 25-6515
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6515 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6515

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANGELO GALLOWAY, a/k/a Gelo,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, Chief District Judge. (2:10-cr-00096-MSD-TEM-2; 2:25-cv- 00073-MSD)

Submitted: October 16, 2025 Decided: October 21, 2025

Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Angelo Galloway, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6515 Doc: 6 Filed: 10/21/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Angelo Galloway appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of

error coram nobis. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error in the district

court’s determination that Galloway failed to establish the requirements for coram nobis

relief. See United States v. Sutherland, 103 F.4th 200, 210-11 (4th Cir. 2024) (discussing

requirements for “extraordinary” coram nobis remedy), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1059

(2025); United States v. Akinsade, 686 F.3d 248, 252 (4th Cir. 2012) (standard of review).

We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s resolution of the petition without

an evidentiary hearing or in camera review. See Sutherland, 103 F.4th at 207 (reviewing

denial of evidentiary hearing in postconviction proceeding for abuse of discretion); In re

Grand Jury Proceedings, 33 F.3d 342, 350-51 (4th Cir. 1994) (reviewing denial of in

camera review for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

judgment. 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