United States v. Stephoni Sumter ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-4558
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEPHONI VERNARD SUMTER, a/k/a Steezy, a/k/a Step,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cr-00736-TLW-4)
Submitted: August 19, 2021 Decided: August 23, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ian T. Duggan, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellant. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Stephoni Vernard Sumter seeks to appeal the district court’s criminal judgment, as
amended in response to a motion in his criminal case. Sumter’s counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), asserting that there are no
meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether the district court relied on
impermissible factors in resolving the motion and whether the court’s ruling was
reasonable. Sumter was informed of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has
not done so. The Government has declined to file a response brief.
Our review of the district court’s order is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a). While
that statute provides us with “jurisdiction to hear challenges to the lawfulness of the method
used by the district court” in issuing its ruling, we lack “jurisdiction to review any part of”
the court’s discretionary decision. United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 190, 194 (4th Cir.
2012).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court’s method in issuing its ruling
was lawful. Because Sumter identifies no ground upon which this court may review the
district court’s substantive ruling, and our independent review of the record pursuant to
Anders has revealed no such ground, we lack the authority to review the district court’s
amended judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
This court requires that counsel inform Sumter, in writing, of the right to petition
the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Sumter requests that a petition
be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may
2
move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state
that a copy thereof was served on Sumter.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3