United States of America v. Hkeem Neuby, a/k/a HORACE MAINE, Hkeem Neuby

The Honorable A. Wallace Tashima, Senior Circuit Judge, United States Court of*
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-3986
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
HKEEM NEUBY,
a/k/a HORACE MAINE,
Hkeem Neuby,
Appellant
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00427
District Judge: The Honorable Michael M. Baylson
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 21, 2007
Before: BARRY, CHAGARES, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges*
(Opinion Filed: June 13, 2007 )
OPINION

-- 1 of 3 --

Neuby was given the opportunity to file a pro se brief and failed to do so by the1
deadline. When he later asked for an extension of time, we granted it. When he missed
the new deadline and asked us for a second extension, we denied his request.
2
BARRY, Circuit Judge
This is an appeal by defendant Hkeem Neuby from a judgment in a criminal case
in which the jury found Neuby guilty of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(e). Neuby was sentenced to 252 months of
imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release, plus a $1,000
fine and a $100 special assessment. He timely appealed.
Neuby’s counsel, Robert M. Gamburg, Esq., has filed a motion to withdraw and a
brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), representing that he has
carefully reviewed the entire record and has discovered no reasonable or non-frivolous
issues to appeal. In accordance with our requirements, see United States v. Marvin, 2111
F.3d 778 (3d Cir. 1999), Gamburg has attempted to uncover Neuby’s best arguments. We
are satisfied that he has fulfilled his Anders obligations, and we agree with his assessment
of the appeal.
The government’s case turned on evidence that after Neuby had been found by the
police behind the glass door of a kitchen shed near a crime scene, he briefly bent down,
hiding the gun that the police later discovered pursuant to a consent search, a gun that was
not owned by the owner of the kitchen shed and was subsequently matched to the bullet
casings found nearby. Gamburg, in his brief, addressed the propriety of the search that

-- 2 of 3 --

3
revealed the gun and the sufficiency of the evidence that supported the jury verdict. He
also discussed the reasonableness of the sentence, which fell at the midpoint of the
advisory guidelines range, and the authority of the District Judge to impose an identical
alternative sentence.
After reviewing the record, we agree that Neuby has no non-frivolous issues to
raise on appeal. We will therefore grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, and will affirm
the judgment of the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --