USA V. SAMUEL HUMPHREY, No. 19-50326 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED SEP 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 19-50326 D.C. No. 3:17-cr-03013-GPC-1 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.