United States v. Keys

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4590
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DARREN L. KEYS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(CR-98-144-CCB)
Submitted: March 19, 2004 Decided: May 11, 2004
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Wyda, Federal Public Defender, Gary W. Christopher, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant. Thomas M. DiBiagio, United States Attorney, Harvey E.
Eisenberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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 (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
- 2 -
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 requirements 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
- 3 -