UNITED STATES v. SUMTER (2021)

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, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (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 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

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.