UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2006). 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 issues for appeal. However, counsel raises the
question of whether Randall’s sentence was greater 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 an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United
States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). Sentences 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 with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) (2006). Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596. The district court
2
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 the § 3553(a) factors, a district court need not
“robotically tick through . . . every subsection.” United
States v. Johnson, 445 F.3d 339, 345 (4th Cir. 2006). The
record establishes that the court articulated relevant
sentencing factors, including Randall’s criminal history,
Randall’s family background and personal 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. See United
States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 328 (4th Cir. 2009).
Furthermore, the 282-month sentence, which is within the
advisory Guidelines range and well below the applicable
statutory maximum of life imprisonment, see 21 U.S.C.
§ 841(b)(1)(A), is presumed reasonable on appeal. For these
reasons, the sentence imposed by the district 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. This
3
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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
4