United States v. Charles Mumphrey

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMay 26, 2021
Docket20-10251
StatusUnpublished

This text of United States v. Charles Mumphrey (United States v. Charles Mumphrey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. Charles Mumphrey, (9th Cir. 2021).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10251

Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00455-HDM- PAL-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

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

Related

United States v. Ezralee Kelley
962 F.3d 470 (Ninth Circuit, 2020)
United States v. Patricia Aruda
993 F.3d 797 (Ninth Circuit, 2021)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
United States v. Charles Mumphrey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-charles-mumphrey-ca9-2021.