US v. Randolph Key, No. 10-4314 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-4314 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RANDOLPH KEY, a/k/a Randy, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (1:08-cr-00729-MBS-10) Submitted: December 23, 2010 Decided: January 12, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William W. Watkins, Sr., WILLIAM W. WATKINS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. John David Rowell, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Randolph Key appeals the 240-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of fifty grams or more of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). Counsel for Key filed a brief in this court in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning the reasonableness of Key s sentence. Counsel states, however, that he has found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Key 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, Key minimum sentence. have sentenced was sentenced to the statutory mandatory Counsel questions whether the court could below the statutory minimum. Because the Government, exercising its discretion, declined to move for a downward departure pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 5K1.1, p.s. (2008), on the ground that it did not find that Key provided substantial assistance, the court in fact had no discretion to impose a sentence below the mandatory minimum. See United 2005). States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir. Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the district court s sentence is reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. 2 We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This court requires that counsel inform Key, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Key requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Key. 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 3
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.
