CLD-105 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-3763
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ARTHUR D’AMARIO,
Appellant
____________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Criminal No. 1-06-cr-00112-001)
District Judge: Honorable Paul S. Diamond
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 31, 2013
Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 13, 2013)
_________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_________
PER CURIAM
Arthur D’Amario appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion to transfer his
supervision to the District of Rhode Island. For the reasons below, we will affirm the
District Court’s order.
D’Amario is serving three years of supervised release after completing a sentence
of 84 months in prison for threatening a federal judge. See United States v. D’Amario,
330 F. App’x 409 (3d Cir. 2009). In September 2012, he filed a counseled motion
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3605 seeking to have his supervision transferred to the District of
Rhode Island. The District Court denied the motion, and D’Amario filed a pro se notice
of appeal.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Section 3605 provides that a
District Court may transfer jurisdiction over a defendant on supervised release to any
other district with the concurrence of the receiving district. D’Amario has not shown that
the District Court for the District of Rhode Island has concurred in the transfer. Because
the District of Rhode Island has not concurred, the District Court did not err in denying
D’Amario’s motion.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, we will summarily affirm
the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6. D’Amario’s motion for
summary action is denied.
2