US v. Chauncey Randolph, No. 13-4977 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4977 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHAUNCEY LAMONT RANDOLPH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00285-CCE-1) Submitted: July 29, 2014 Decided: July 31, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William S. Trivette, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Timothy Nicholas Matkins, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Chauncey Lamont Randolph pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted §§ 922(g)(1), 924 (2012). in the middle imprisonment. pursuant to of his felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. The district court sentenced Randolph Guidelines range to 100 months On appeal, Randolph s counsel has filed a brief Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning sentence. the substantive reasonableness of Randolph s Randolph has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, despite notice of his right to do so. We review Randolph s We affirm. sentence for reasonableness, applying a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). When Gall v. reviewing a sentence for substantive reasonableness, we examine the totality of the circumstances properly-calculated and, if Guidelines the sentence range, apply is a within presumption appeal that the sentence is substantively reasonable. the on United States v. Mendoza Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 17 (4th Cir. 2010). Such a presumption is rebutted only if the defendant shows that the sentence is unreasonable when U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2012)] factors. measured against the [18 United States v. Montes Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2 On appeal, Randolph s counsel argues that Randolph s sentence is unreasonable because it is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of § 3553(a). has failed to overcome the We conclude that Randolph appellate reasonableness afforded his sentence. presumption of In arguing for a downward variance at sentencing, defense counsel pointed out to the court the impact range. seek of a single misdemeanor on Randolph s Guidelines Counsel further informed the court that Randolph would employment in the culinary field upon release. The district court acknowledged counsel s arguments, but concluded that a sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range was appropriate in order to protect the public, to reflect the seriousness of the offense, and in light of Randolph s long criminal record. Given the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to a within-Guidelines sentence, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court s decision not to vary downward and to impose a sentence in the middle of the Guidelines range. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and Accordingly, find we no other affirm the meritorious district issues court s for judgment. appeal. This court requires counsel to inform Randolph, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Randolph requests that a petition be filed but counsel believes such a petition would be frivolous, counsel 3 may move in representation. this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Randolph. 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 in the 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.
