United States v. Samuel Humphrey ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 11 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-50326
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:17-cr-03013-GPC-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SAMUEL MARKS HUMPHREY, AKA
Eddie Joe Alston, AKA Leon Archie, AKA
Michael Gordy, AKA Kenneth Smith,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Gonzalo P. Curiel, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 8, 2020**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Samuel Marks Humphrey appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges his guilty-plea conviction and sentence of time served for being a felon
in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Pursuant to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Humphrey’s counsel has filed a brief
stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as
counsel of record. We have provided Humphrey the opportunity to file a pro se
supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been
filed, but the court has reviewed Humphrey’s pro se filings.
Humphrey waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Our
independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80
(1988), discloses no arguable issue as to the validity of the waiver. See United
States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 986-88 (9th Cir. 2009). We accordingly dismiss
the appeal. See id. at 988.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
Humphrey’s pro se motions to dismiss and for appointment of substitute
counsel, as well as his other requests, are denied.
DISMISSED.
2 19-50326