United States v. Keys

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Keys

96 F. App'x 882

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMay 11, 2004

Docket03-4590

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 96 F. App'x 882 (United States v. Keys) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Keys, 96 F. App'x 882 (4th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Darren L. Keys was sentenced to twenty-seven months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release based on his conviction in the District of Maryland for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) (2000). While on supervised release from that court, Keys was convicted by the District of Florida of similar crimes. Based in part on the Florida convictions, the District of Maryland revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to eighteen months of imprisonment to be followed by a new term of twelve months of supervised release. The eighteen-month sentence was imposed to run consecutively to Keys’ Florida sentence. On appeal, Keys challenges the sentence imposed for violating his supervised release. Keys’ counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issue: whether the court erred by imposing Keys’ eighteen-month sentence to run consecutively with his sentence for his convictions in the District of Florida. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We do not find that the district court abused its discretion by imposing Keys’ sentence for violating his supervised release to run consecutively with his Florida convictions. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995) (stating standard of review). More specifically, we do not find that the district court impermissibly imposed multiple punishments for the same conduct. United States v. Mosley, 200 F.3d 218, 221 (4th Cir.1999).

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the require *883 ments of Anders, including the issues raised in Keys’ pro se supplemental brief, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. We grant Keys’ motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief but deny his motion to compel and “Emergency Motion to Stay All Proceedings.” This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Darren L. Keys was sentenced to twenty-seven months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release based on his conviction in the District of Maryland for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) (2000). While on supervised release from that court, Keys was convicted by the District of Florida of similar crimes. Based in part on the Florida convictions, the District of Maryland revoked his supervised release and sentenced him to eighteen months of imprisonment to be followed by a new term of twelve months of supervised release. The eighteen-month sentence was imposed to run consecutively to Keys’ Florida sentence. On appeal, Keys challenges the sentence imposed for violating his supervised release. Keys’ counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), alleging that there are no meritorious claims on appeal but raising the following issue: whether the court erred by imposing Keys’ eighteen-month sentence to run consecutively with his sentence for his convictions in the District of Florida. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

We do not find that the district court abused its discretion by imposing Keys’ sentence for violating his supervised release to run consecutively with his Florida convictions. United States v. Davis, 53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995) (stating standard of review). More specifically, we do not find that the district court impermissibly imposed multiple punishments for the same conduct. United States v. Mosley, 200 F.3d 218, 221 (4th Cir.1999).

We have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the require *883 ments of Anders, including the issues raised in Keys’ pro se supplemental brief, and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. We grant Keys’ motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief but deny his motion to compel and “Emergency Motion to Stay All Proceedings.” This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client 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 the client. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. App'x 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-keys-ca4-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack