US v. Tony Humphrey

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cr-00228-FDW-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999537646].. [14-4453]

Appeal: 14-4453

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4453

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 4

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
2

Humphrey’s

plea

was

knowing,

Appeal: 14-4453

Doc: 31

Filed: 03/02/2015

Pg: 3 of 4

voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis.

See

United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991).
Moreover,

the

district

error at sentencing.

court

made

no

significant

procedural

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51

(2007).
Counsel

questions

whether

substantively reasonable.

Humphrey’s

sentence

is

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

the

only

be

unreasonable

rebutted

when

[(2012)] factors.”
(4th

Cir.)

by

showing

measured

against

that
the

18

sentence

U.S.C.

§

is

3553(a)

United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306

(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

mitigating

from

factors

violent
and

that

crime,

but

Humphrey
3

also

was

recognized

making

efforts

the
to

Appeal: 14-4453

improve

Doc: 31

his

Filed: 03/02/2015

life.

We

Pg: 4 of 4

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