United States v. Carey, No. 19-7064 (10th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT _________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, July 16, 2020 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 19-7064 (D.C. No. 6:16-CR-00025-RAW-1) (E.D. Okla.) v. JASON WAYNE CAREY, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HOLMES, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ Mr. Jason Wayne Carey was convicted of being a felon in possession of an explosive. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 842(i)(1), 844(a)(1). The initial sentence was sixty months’ imprisonment and thirty-six months’ supervised release, but the sentence was later reduced to thirty-six month terms of * Oral argument would not materially help us to decide this appeal. We have therefore decided the appeal based on the appellate brief and the record on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This order and judgment does not constitute binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. But the order and judgment may be cited for its persuasive value if otherwise appropriate. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a); 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A). imprisonment and supervised release. Mr. Carey later violated the terms and conditions of supervised release when he committed domestic assault and battery, failed to comply with drug testing, and failed to secure and maintain gainful employment. The district court thus revoked Mr. Carey’s supervised release and sentenced him to twelve months’ imprisonment and twenty-four months’ supervised release. Mr. Carey appeals. Mr. Carey’s counsel filed an Anders brief, showing counsel’s conscientious examination of the case to identify potential issues for appeal. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Concluding that any appeal would be frivolous, Mr. Carey’s counsel seeks leave to withdraw. Mr. Carey did not file a pro se brief or identify any issues for appeal. After reviewing counsel’s brief and the record, we grant counsel’s request for leave, decline to appoint new counsel for Mr. Carey, and dismiss the appeal. Mr. Carey’s counsel has identified three potential appellate issues: 1. The district court erroneously revoked Mr. Carey’s supervised release. 2. The district court unreasonably sentenced Mr. Carey to twelve months’ imprisonment and twenty-four months’ supervised release. 2 3. The district court abused its discretion in imposing a condition that Mr. Carey abstain from drinking alcohol during his supervised release. Mr. Carey’s counsel regards these potential arguments as frivolous, and we agree. We thus grant counsel’s request for leave, decline to appoint Mr. Carey a new attorney, and dismiss the appeal. Entered for the Court Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
