UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 was sentenced to the statutory mandatory
minimum sentence. Counsel questions whether the court could
have sentenced 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 States v. Robinson, 404 F.3d 850, 862 (4th Cir.
2005). 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 this court for leave to withdraw from
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Key.
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
3