US v. Joseph Cook
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cr-00017-IMK-MJA-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4565]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
JOSEPH FRANKLIN COOK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley,
District Judge. (1:16-cr-00017-IMK-MJA-1)
February 16, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge,
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
February 21, 2017
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
L. Richard Walker, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen M.
Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United
States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
The district court revoked Joseph Franklin Cook’s term of
supervised release after concluding that Cook violated several
sentenced him to 366 days’ imprisonment, followed by 24 months
of supervised release, and he now appeals.
has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738
(1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal
but questioning whether the sentence imposed is reasonable. *
sentence unless it falls outside the statutory maximum or is
sentence is unreasonable must we assess whether it is plainly
“In determining whether a revocation sentence is
than we do when reviewing original sentences.”
quotation marks omitted).
“Nonetheless, the same procedural and
In his pro se supplemental brief, Cook asserts that some
of the violations were unsupported in fact. Because no evidence
contradicts Cook’s prior sworn assertions that he committed the
violations, we conclude that the district court did not err in
revoking supervised release. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d
370, 373 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015)
(stating standard of review).
Pg: 3 of 4
sentences inform our review of revocation sentences as well.”
Id. (internal brackets and quotation marks omitted).
At the revocation hearing, Cook admitted to using several
Government supported Cook’s admission.
Given Cook’s Grade B
court properly calculated Cook’s policy statement range as 12 to
adequately explained the sentence imposed by reference to the
relevant statutory sentencing factors, particularly its concern
that Cook receive substance abuse treatment after his release.
sentence imposed by the district court.
See United States v.
Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
This court requires that counsel inform Cook, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
If Cook requests that a petition be filed, but
counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then
Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Cook.
Pg: 4 of 4
We dispense with oral argument because the
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?