[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3
2

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) 

USCA11 Case: 20-12123 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 2 of 3
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. 

USCA11 Case: 20-12123 Date Filed: 02/10/2021 Page: 3 of 3