US v. Keizar Randall, No. 08-4504 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4504 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KEIZAR MONTRELL RANDALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (4:05-cv-02439-TLW-1; 4:03-cr-00922-TLW-1) Submitted: June 4, 2009 Decided: July 2, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Guy J. Vitetta, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keizar Randall was convicted after pleading guilty to possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). of The district court sentenced Randall to 282 months imprisonment. Randall appealed. Randall s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there are no meritorious question of issues for appeal. Randall s whether However, counsel sentence was raises greater the than necessary to comply with the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 (2006). Although advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, Randall has not done so. Appellate courts review sentences for reasonableness, applying States, an 128 abuse S. of Ct. discretion 586, 597 standard. (2007). Gall Sentences v. United within the applicable Guidelines range may be presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, __, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459, 2462 (2007); United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the appropriate advisory Guidelines range and consider it in conjunction § 3553(a) (2006). with the factors set Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596. 2 forth in 18 U.S.C. The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Randall, appropriately treating the Guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable Guidelines range, and referencing § 3553(a). While the court did not specifically discuss factors, the § 3553(a) robotically tick through . . a . district every court need subsection. United States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). record establishes sentencing that factors, Randall s family the court including background articulated Randall s and personal not The relevant criminal history, characteristics, and the seriousness of the offense, prior to imposing its chosen sentence. The district court thus made an individualized assessment of the appropriate penalty, and stated the particular facts unique to Randall supporting the sentence. States v. Carter, Furthermore, the 564 F.3d 282-month advisory Guidelines statutory maximum range of 325, 328 sentence, and life well (4th the sentence is below the imprisonment, imposed by Cir. which see § 841(b)(1)(A), is presumed reasonable on appeal. reasons, See United the district 2009). within the applicable 21 U.S.C. For these court was reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Randall s conviction and sentence. 3 This court requires that counsel inform Randall, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Randall 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 Randall. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
