UNITED STATES v. MUMPHREY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-26No. No. 20-10251

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's order denying Mumphrey's motion for sentence reduction, holding that Section 404 of the First Step Act does not apply to a Hobbs Act robbery conviction because such offenses are not among those whose statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.

Charles Bo Mumphrey sought a reduction of his sentence for a Hobbs Act robbery conviction under Section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. Mumphrey argued that he qualified for relief because his career offender classification had relied partly on an earlier crack cocaine conviction. The appellate court examined the statutory language of the First Step Act and determined that none of its provisions authorized a sentence reduction in his particular situation.

The court found that Section 404 specifically requires that the defendant's current offense be one for which statutory penalties were modified by the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. Because Mumphrey's robbery conviction did not meet this criterion, the statute did not permit the relief he sought. The court therefore upheld the district court's rejection of his request.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Eligibility for sentence reduction under Section 404 of the First Step Act
Scope of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 as applied to robbery offenses
Whether a career offender classification based on a drug conviction supports First Step Act relief for a non-drug current offense

Procedural posture

Mumphrey appealed pro se from a district court order denying his motion for sentence reduction under the First Step Act.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Bo Mumphrey appeals pro se from the district courts order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under section 404 of the First Step Act of 2018. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Mumphrey contends that the First Step Act allows for a reduction of the sentence imposed in connection with his conviction for interfering with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, because his career offender designation was based, in part, on a prior crack cocaine conviction. “Statutory interpretation is a question of law that we review de novo.” United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted). No provision of the Act authorizes a sentence reduction in this case. See First Step Act §§ 401-04. Contrary to his contention, section 404 does not apply to Mumphrey because his current Hobbs Act robbery conviction is not an offense for which “the statutory penalties ․ were modified by section 2 or 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010.” Id., § 404(a); United States v. Kelley, 962 F.3d 470, 472 (9th Cir. 2020) (discussing scope of Fair Sentencing Act).

Mumphreys motions for sentence reduction and relief under the First Step Act are denied.

AFFIRMED.