USCA11 Case: 20-12123 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-12123
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00070-SCB-JSS-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHARLIE CARTER, III,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 10, 2021)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-12123 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 2 of 3
Charlie Carter, III appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm and
ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Carter’s
appointed counsel asserts that Carter has no meritorious issues to bring to our
attention on appeal. See Anders v. California,
386 U.S. 738, 744,
87 S. Ct. 1396,
1400 (1967) (when counsel determines that a criminal defendant’s case is “wholly
frivolous,” counsel must “so advise the court and request permission to
withdraw”). As required, his counsel filed a brief setting out any irregularities or
other potential errors in Carter’s trial process that might arguably be meritorious.
See United States v. Blackwell,
767 F.2d 1486, 1487–88 (11th Cir. 1985) (per
curiam). Carter responded to the Anders brief by filing his own pro se brief.
We have carefully reviewed Carter’s counsel’s brief, Carter’s pro se brief, as
well as the record. Anders,
386 U.S. at 744,
87 S. Ct. at 1400. We have
independently determined there are no issues of arguable merit for our review.
Id.
In his pro se brief, Carter argues that the district court should have
suppressed evidence obtained as a result of a traffic stop conducted after he
allegedly made an improper right-hand turn. Carter says the district court was
wrong to credit the police officer’s testimony. But the police officer’s testimony
that he observed Carter improperly turn right into the center lane was not so
improbable that the district court’s “understanding of the facts appears to be
unbelievable.” See United States v. Evans,
958 F.3d 1102, 1107 (11th Cir. 2020)
2
USCA11 Case: 20-12123 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 3 of 3
(quotation marks omitted). And, contrary to Carter’s claim, the two diagrams the
police officer drew of the intersection where he observed this improper turn were
consistent with the testimony he offered. Carter’s argument that the district court
erred in crediting the police officer’s testimony is therefore without arguable merit.
Carter’s claim that the police officer improperly prolonged the traffic stop,
an argument he makes for the first time on appeal, fares no better. The police
officer testified that he smelled marijuana from Carter’s truck and, when asked
whether he had anything illegal in the truck, Carter pulled a firearm from between
the driver’s seat and center console. The officer could therefore point to “specific
and articulable facts” that justified the prolongation of the stop. United States v.
Pruitt,
174 F.3d 1215, 1219 (11th Cir. 1999) (quotation marks omitted).
To the extent Carter argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his
criminal case because the traffic court dismissed the underlying traffic citation, that
claim also does not have any arguable merit. The state court dismissed Carter’s
traffic ticket without a hearing and without making any factual determinations or
any findings about the constitutionality of the traffic stop. The district court’s
determination that there was a valid basis for the traffic stop therefore did not
conflict with any state court order.
We find no issues of arguable merit for our review. We therefore AFFIRM
Carter’s conviction and GRANT counsel’s motion to withdraw.
3
