United States v. Carter
This text of United States v. Carter (United States v. Carter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case: 25-10716 Document: 53-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/25/2026
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit
FILED No. 25-10716 February 25, 2026 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Oscar Carter,
Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CR-299-1 ______________________________
Before Smith, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Oscar Carter appeals from an amended judgment, which was issued after the Probation Office petitioned the district court to modify the conditions of his supervised release. The Probation Office sought the inclusion of various conditions, including some that the district court had previously stricken from an earlier judgment, upon order of this court,
_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-10716 Document: 53-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/25/2026
No. 25-10716
because the conditions were unpronounced. See United States v. Carter, No. 24-10262 (5th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024) (unpublished order). Carter argues that the modification of the amended judgment circumvents this court’s earlier directive to strike the unpronounced conditions. The Government has filed an unopposed motion for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file its brief. As Carter concedes, his argument is foreclosed. See United States v. Trevino, 125 F.4th 198, 201–03 (5th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2690 (2025). Summary affirmance is thus appropriate. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Accordingly, the motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, the alternative motion for an extension of time is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
United States v. Carter, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-carter-ca5-2026.