2007 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-13-2007 

# U SA v . N euby P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-3986

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2007 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" U SA v . N e ub y " (2007). 2007 D e cisio n s . P ape r 952. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2007/952T he H onor abl e A . W al l ace T as hi m a, Seni orC i r cui tJ udge, U ni t ed St at es C our tof * A p p e a ls f

o r t h e N in th C ir c u it, s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT 

### No. 04- 3986 UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

v. HKEE M N EU BY , a/k/ aHO RA CE MA INE , H k e e m

N e ub y, Appe l l ant APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

D . C . C r i m . N o. 03- cr - 00427 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e M i chae l M . B ay l s on Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay21, 2007 B efor e: B A R R Y , C H A G A R E S, and TA SH I M A , C i r cui tJ udges * ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J une 13, 2007 )

OP I NI ONN eubyw as gi ven the oppor tuni t yt o fi l e a pr o s e br i ef a nd fai l ed t o do s o byt he 1 deadl i ne. W hen he l at eras ked foran ext ens i on of t i m e, w e gr ant ed i t . W hen he mi s s ed th e n e w d e a d lin e a n d a s k e d u s f o r a s e c o n d e x te n s io n , w e d e n ie d h is re q u e s t.

2 B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge T his i s an app eal bydefe nd ant H keem N eub yfrom a j ud gm ent i n a cri m i nal cas e in w h ich th e ju ryf

o u n d N e u b yg u iltyo f

p o ss e ss io n o f

a f ire a rm b ya c o n v icte d f

e lo n in vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . §§ 922( g) ( 1) and 924( e) . N eubyw as s ent ence d t o 252 m ont hs of i m pr i s onm entt o be fol l ow ed bya thr ee- y eart er m of s upervi s ed r el eas e, pl us a $1, 000 fi ne and a $100 s peci al as s es s m ent . H e t i m el yappea l ed. N euby ’ s couns el , R ober tM . G amburg, E s q. , has fi l ed a mot i on t o w i t hdr aw and a br i ef pur s uantt o A nder s v. C al i for ni a, 386 U . S. 738 ( 1967) , r epr es ent i ng t hathe has
car eful l yr evi ew ed the ent i r e r ecor d and has di s cover ed no r eas onabl e ornon- fr i vol ous i s s ues t o appea l . I n acc or dance w i t h ourr equi r ement s , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. M ar vi n, 211 1 F .3 d 7 7 8 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ), G a m b u rg h a s a tte m p te d to u n c o v e r N e u b y ’s b e s t a rg u m e n ts . W e ar e s at i s fi ed thathe has ful fi l l ed hi s A nder s obl i gat i ons , and w e agr ee w i t h hi s as s es s m ent o f th e a p p e a l. T he governm ent ’ s cas e tur ned on evi dence t hataft erN eubyhad bee n found byt he pol i ce be hi nd t he gl as s doorof a ki t chen s hed nea ra cr i m e s cene , he br i efl ybentdow n, hi di ng t he gun thatt he pol i ce l at erdi s cover ed pur s uantt o a cons ents ear ch, a gun thatw as notow ned byt he ow nerof t he ki t chen s hed and w as s ubs equent l ym at ched t o t he bul l et cas i ngs found nea rby . G amburg, i n hi s br i ef, addr es s ed the pr opr i etyof t he s ear ch that3

r e v e a l e d t h e g u n a n d t h e s u f f i c i e n c yo f

t h e e v i d e n c e t h a ts u p p o r t e d t h e j u r yv e r d i c t . He al s o di s cus s ed the r eas onabl enes s of t he s ent ence , w hi ch fe l l att he mi dpoi ntof t he advi s or ygui del i nes r ange, and the author i t yof t he D i s t r i ctJ udge t o i m pos e an i dent i cal
a lte rn a tiv e s e n te n c e . A f ter re v iew in g th e re c o rd , w e a g re e th a t N e u b yh a s n o n o n -f riv o lo u s is su e s to raise o n ap p ea l. W e w il l th ere fo re g ran t cou n sel’s m o ti o n to w ith d raw , an d w il l aff irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.