United States v. Tony Humphrey ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-4453
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    TONY HUMPHREY,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   Frank D. Whitney,
    Chief District Judge. (3:12-cr-00228-FDW-1)
    Submitted:   February 18, 2015             Decided:   March 2, 2015
    Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steven T. Meier, MEIER LAW, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
    Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Tony Humphrey pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea
    agreement, to two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of
    
    18 U.S.C. § 1951
     (2012) (Counts One and Ten); two counts of
    attempted Hobbs Act robbery (Counts Three and Eight); one count
    of armed bank robbery, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 2113
    (a), (d)
    (2012) (Count Six); and two counts of brandishing a firearm in
    furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012) (Counts Two and Four).                    The district
    court sentenced Humphrey to a total of 471 months’ imprisonment,
    consisting of eighty-seven months’ imprisonment on Counts One,
    Three, Six, Eight, and Ten, to be served concurrently; seven
    years’ imprisonment on Count Two, to be served consecutive to
    all    other    sentences;        and   twenty-five    years’    imprisonment   on
    Count Four, to be served consecutive to all other sentences.                    On
    appeal, Humphrey’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders
    v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), stating that there are no
    meritorious issues for appeal but questioning the substantive
    reasonableness of Humphrey’s sentence.                We affirm.
    In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
    this    case,       and    have   found   no   meritorious      issues.     Before
    accepting Humphrey’s guilty plea, the magistrate judge conducted
    a thorough plea colloquy, satisfying the requirements of Fed. R.
    Crim.   P.     11    and    ensuring    that   Humphrey’s    plea   was   knowing,
    2
    voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis.                                      See
    United States v. DeFusco, 
    949 F.2d 114
    , 116 (4th Cir. 1991).
    Moreover,       the    district      court       made     no    significant         procedural
    error at sentencing.            See Gall v. United States, 
    552 U.S. 38
    , 51
    (2007).
    Counsel         questions         whether        Humphrey’s            sentence          is
    substantively reasonable.                We assess substantive reasonableness
    by considering the totality of the circumstances.                             “Any sentence
    that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range
    is presumptively [substantively] reasonable.                           Such a presumption
    can     only     be     rebutted      by        showing        that    the        sentence      is
    unreasonable          when    measured     against        the     
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a)
    [(2012)] factors.”            United States v. Louthian, 
    756 F.3d 295
    , 306
    (4th    Cir.)    (citation       omitted),          cert.      denied,      
    135 S. Ct. 421
    (2014).
    After     careful       review      of    the    record,        we    conclude         that
    Humphrey had failed to rebut the presumed reasonableness of his
    sentence.        The district court considered Humphrey’s childhood
    and mental health problems, but concluded that these factors did
    not excuse his violent crimes.                       The court determined that a
    sentence at the low end of the Guidelines range was necessary to
    reflect the seriousness of Humphrey’s criminal conduct and to
    deter     others       from    violent      crime,        but     also      recognized        the
    mitigating       factors       and   that       Humphrey        was    making      efforts      to
    3
    improve   his   life.     We   therefore   conclude   that   Humphrey’s
    sentence is reasonable.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.        This
    court requires that counsel inform Humphrey, in writing, of the
    right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
    further review.    If Humphrey 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 Humphrey.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
    court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-4453

Judges: Agee, Davis, Motz, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 3/2/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024