United States v. Richarde Carter

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4195

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICHARDE DANIEL CARTER, a/k/a Rickey Daniel Wilkerson,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00094-MOC-DSC-1)

Submitted: September 6, 2013 Decided: September 25, 2013

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jennifer L. Coulter, LAW OFFICES OF COULTER & THOMPSON,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Richarde Daniel Carter appeals the district court’s

order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him to

twenty-one months of imprisonment. Counsel has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

certifying that there are no meritorious issues for appeal but

questioning whether the district court erred in revoking

Carter’s supervised release based on conduct that occurred in

another district. Although notified of his right to do so,

Carter has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.

Carter is essentially challenging the Western District

of North Carolina’s jurisdiction over his revocation

proceedings. Because Carter raises this claim for the first

time on appeal, we review for plain error. Fed. R. Crim. P.

52(b); United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 (1993). To

meet the plain error standard (1) there must be an error;

(2) the error must be plain, meaning obvious or clear under

current law; and (3) the error must affect substantial rights.

Olano, 507 U.S. at 732-34. If these three elements are met, we

may exercise our discretion to notice the error, which we do

only if the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or

public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 732

(internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

2
 Carter’s original sentence was imposed in the Western

District of North Carolina. Although his violations occurred in

the District of South Carolina and his supervising probation

officer was located there, jurisdiction was never transferred to

that district. Accordingly, the Western District of North

Carolina was the proper jurisdiction to entertain the revocation

proceedings. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(a)(5)(A)(i). Therefore,

Carter’s argument is meritless.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire

record and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. This court

requires that counsel inform Carter, in writing, of the right to

petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If Carter 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 his client. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3