United States of America v. Joseph Votta

1
DLD-82 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-4441
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
JOSEPH VOTTA,
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-CR-0009)
District Judge: Honorable Christopher C. Conner
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 21, 2006
Before: Barry, Ambro and Fisher, Circuit Judges.
(Filed January 9, 2007)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Joseph Votta appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, denying his motion to transfer jurisdiction over his

-- 1 of 3 --

2
supervised release. Votta cites 18 U.S.C. § 3605 as authority for his motion, which
provides in pertinent part:
A court, after imposing sentence, may transfer jurisdiction over a . . . person
on supervised release to the district court for any other district to which the
person . . . is permitted to proceed, with the concurrence of such court.
The District Court denied relief because it appeared that the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona did not concur with Votta’s request for a transfer.
On appeal, Votta argues that the District Court erred in denying his request
because the Probation Officer for the United States Probation Office for the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona did not conduct a proper investigation before
denying his request, and because it is not clear whether the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona (apart from the Probation Officer) concurred in the transfer of
jurisdiction.
Attached to Votta’s brief is a letter from R. Scott Stipe, Senior U.S. Probation
Officer, written on letterhead for the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, Probation Office, which gives the reasons for denying the relocation request. It
is clear that the Probation Officer’s response was as an agent of the court. See United
States v. Nash, 438 F.3d 1302, 1305 (11th Cir. 2006) (“[W]here the court makes the
determination of whether a defendant must abide by a condition, . . . it is permissible to
delegate to the probation officer the details of where and when the condition will be
satisfied.”), quoting United States v. Stephens, 424 F.3d 876, 880 (9th Cir. 2005).
Because the statute requires the concurrence of the transferee court; 18 U.S.C. § 3605; see

-- 2 of 3 --

3
also United States v. Ohler, 22 F.3d 857, 858-59 (9 th Cir. 1994); and because the
transferee court here indicated that it did not concur, the District Court lacked the
authority to grant Votta’s motion. We therefore will affirm the District Court’s order.

-- 3 of 3 --