USA V. CHARLES MUMPHREY, No. 20-10251 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 26 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 20-10251 D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00455-HDMPAL-2 v. CHARLES BO MUMPHREY, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Howard D. McKibben, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 18, 2021** Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Charles Bo Mumphrey appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Mumphrey contends that the First Step Act allows for a reduction of the * 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). sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for interfering with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, because his career offender designation was based, in part, on a prior crack cocaine conviction. “Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo.” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). No provision of the Act authorizes a sentence reduction in this case. See First Step Act §§ 401-04. Contrary to his contention, section 404 does not apply to Mumphrey because his current Hobbs Act robbery conviction is not an offense for which “the statutory penalties . . . were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.” Id., § 404(a); United States v. Kelley, 962 F.3d 470, 472 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussing scope of Fair Sentencing Act). Mumphrey’s motions for sentence reduction and relief under the First Step Act are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 20-10251
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.
