Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roosevelt SUMPTER, a.k.a. T-Dog, a.k.a. Tu Tu, Defendant-Appellant.
MEMORANDUM **
Roosevelt Sumpter appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea convictions and 240-month sentence for conspiracy to engage in racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d) and 1963; conspiracy to traffic narcotics, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846; distribution of controlled substances in or near a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 860; and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence and/or a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i). Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), Sumpter’s counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We have provided Sumpter the opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.
Sumpter waived his right to appeal his convictions, with the exception of an appeal based on a claim that his pleas were involuntary. Our independent review of the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as to the voluntariness of Sumpter’s pleas. We therefore affirm as to that issue and dismiss the remainder of the appeal of his convictions.
Sumpter also waived the right to appeal most aspects of his sentence. We dismiss Sumpter’s sentencing appeal as to those aspects of his sentence that are covered by the waiver and affirm as to all other issues except as to the three supervised release conditions, standard conditions five, six, and fourteen, which are unconstitutionally vague. See United States v. Evans, 883 F.3d 1154, 1162-64 (9th Cir. 2018); see also United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2009) (an appeal waiver does not bar a constitutional challenge to a supervised release condition). We remand for the district court to modify these conditions consistent with our opinion in Evans.
Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-50085
Decided: May 18, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)