United States v. Arthur D'Amario, III , 513 F. App'x 128 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • CLD-105                                              NOT PRECEDENTIAL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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-3763

Citation Numbers: 513 F. App'x 128

Judges: Rendell, Jordan, Garth

Filed Date: 2/13/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024