2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

4-28-2006

USA v. D'Amario

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 06-1498

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. D'Amario" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 1197.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/1197
BPS-187 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-1498

________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

ARTHUR D’AMARIO, III, 

Appellant

________________

On Appeal From the United States District Court

For the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Civ. No. 01-cr-00346)

District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas

________________

Submitted For Possible Summary Action 

Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

April 13, 2006

Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, RENDELL and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

(Filed April 28, 2006)

________________

OPINION

________________

PER CURIAM

Arthur D’Amario appeals from the District Court’s order denying his motion to

stay or revoke his supervised release. Because D’Amario’s appeal presents no substantial

question, we will summarily affirm.
 According to D’Amario, his term of incarceration for the supervised release 1

revocation ended on February 10, 2006.

 After he filed a notice of appeal regarding the District Court’s denial of his motion, 2

D’Amario filed an emergency motion in this Court, which we denied. D’Amario v.

United States, No. 06-1498 (Feb. 8, 2006).

2

Because we write primarily for the parties, the facts of this case need not be

recounted in detail. The background of this case can be found at United States v.

D’Amario, 403 F. Supp. 2d 361 (D.N.J. 2005). In 2005, the United States District Court

for the District of Rhode Island revoked D’Amario’s supervised release after he violated

the conditions of that release. See United States v. D’Amario, 412 F.3d 253 (1st Cir.

1

2005). On January 17, 2006, D’Amario moved in the District of New Jersey to prevent

his release from prison. Because he appears to have challenged the commencement of 2

his supervised release in the wrong jurisdiction, the District Court properly denied his

motion.

Upon his initial release from prison D’Amario began serving two concurrent terms

of supervised release, one from a conviction in the District of New Jersey, the other from

the District of Rhode Island. On May 2, 2003, the District of New Jersey transferred

jurisdiction over D’Amario’s supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3605 to the

District of Rhode Island. United States v. D’Amario, No. 01-0346 (D.N.J. May 2, 2003). 

Thus, the District of New Jersey no longer has jurisdiction to provide the relief that he

seeks and properly denied his motion.
3

In short, upon consideration of the record, we conclude that his appeal presents us

with no substantial question. See Third Circuit L.A.R. 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6. 

Accordingly, we will affirm the District Court’s order.