United States of America v. Arthur D’amario, Iii

BPS-187 NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

-- 1 of 3 --

According to D’Amario, his term of incarceration for the supervised release1
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 of2
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.

-- 2 of 3 --

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.

-- 3 of 3 --