United States of America v. Roosevelt Sumpter, a.k.a. T-Dog, a.k.a. Tu Tu

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROOSEVELT SUMPTER, a.k.a. T-Dog,
a.k.a. Tu Tu,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-50085
D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00338-SJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 15, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
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;
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
MAY 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-50085
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 (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 (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

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-50085
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.

-- 3 of 3 --