US v. Richarde Carter, No. 13-4195 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-4195 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHARDE DANIEL CARTER, a/k/a Rickey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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 order revoking Daniel his Carter supervised appeals release twenty-one months of imprisonment. accordance with Anders v. the and district court s sentencing him to Counsel has filed a brief in 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 proceedings. jurisdiction over his revocation 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). meet the (2) the plain error error must be standard (1) there plain, meaning must obvious be or To an error; 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. (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). 2 Id. at 732 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. therefore affirm the district court s judgment. This We court requires that counsel inform Carter, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme review. If Carter Court of requests the that United a States petition be for further filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. was served on in this court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof 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
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.
