US v. Craig Cook

Filing 920090824

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4885 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CRAIG COOK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cr-00239-1) Submitted: August 20, 2009 Decided: August 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John H. Tinney, Jr., THE TINNEY LAW FIRM PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. Miller A. Bushong, III, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Craig Cook was convicted, pursuant to a guilty plea, of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (h) (2006). The district court sentenced Cook to 87 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Cook's counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the reasonableness of Cook's sentence, but concludes that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Cook was notified of his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, but has failed to do so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. Cook's sole claim of error on appeal is the challenge to his sentence. in its He claims to abuse grant of the him district an court's of discretion refusal acceptance responsibility reduction in the calculation of his offense level for his acceptance of responsibility based upon his single transgression of the terms and conditions of his presentence bond, when he tested positive for the use of illicit drugs. When determining a sentence, the district court must calculate the appropriate advisory guidelines range and consider it in conjunction with the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) (2006). Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 596 (2007). Appellate review of a district court's imposition of a sentence, "whether inside, just outside, 2 or significantly outside the [g]uidelines range," is for abuse of discretion. Id. at 591. Sentences within the applicable guidelines range may be presumed by the appellate court to be reasonable. United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 473 (4th Cir. 2007). The district court followed the necessary procedural steps in sentencing Cook, appropriately treating the sentencing guidelines as advisory, properly calculating and considering the applicable guidelines range and the relevant 3553(a) factors. Cook's guidelines range was 70 to 87 months' imprisonment. 87-month range, sentence, be which is within the by applicable this court His guidelines on appeal. may presumed reasonable Pauley, 511 F.3d at 473. Nor do we find erroneous the district court's decision not to award an acceptance of responsibility reduction of Cook's offense level, based on his positive drug screen. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the chosen sentence. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Cook's conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Cook, in writing, of the right to petition review. the Supreme Court of the United States for further If Cook requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for 3 leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's motion must state that a copy thereof We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the was served on Cook. facts and legal before contentions the court materials would decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?