Filed: Jul. 16, 2020
Latest Update: Jul. 16, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 16, 2020 _ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 19-7064 v. (D.C. No. 6:16-CR-00025-RAW-1) (E.D. Okla.) 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),
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 16, 2020 _ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 19-7064 v. (D.C. No. 6:16-CR-00025-RAW-1) (E.D. Okla.) 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), 8..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT July 16, 2020
_________________________________
Christopher M. Wolpert
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 19-7064
v. (D.C. No. 6:16-CR-00025-RAW-1)
(E.D. Okla.)
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