US v. Joseph Cook

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:16-cr-00017-IMK-MJA-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000026759].. [16-4565]

Appeal: 16-4565

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/21/2017

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4565

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
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)

Submitted:

February 16, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge,
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Decided:

DUNCAN,

February 21, 2017

Circuit

Judge,

and

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4565

Doc: 22

Filed: 02/21/2017

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
The district court revoked Joseph Franklin Cook’s term of
supervised release after concluding that Cook violated several
conditions

of

his

supervised

release.

The

district

court

sentenced him to 366 days’ imprisonment, followed by 24 months
of supervised release, and he now appeals.

Appellate counsel

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. *

We

affirm.
“We

will

not

disturb

a

district

court’s

revocation

sentence unless it falls outside the statutory maximum or is
otherwise

plainly

unreasonable.”

(internal

quotation

marks

Padgett,

omitted).

“Only

788
if

F.3d
a

at

373

revocation

sentence is unreasonable must we assess whether it is plainly
so.”

Id.

unreasonable,

“In determining whether a revocation sentence is
we

strike

a

more

deferential

appellate

than we do when reviewing original sentences.”
quotation marks omitted).

posture

Id. (internal

“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).

2

Appeal: 16-4565

Doc: 22

substantive

Filed: 02/21/2017

considerations

Pg: 3 of 4

that

guide

our

review

of

original

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
controlled

substances,

and

the

urinalyses

Government supported Cook’s admission.
violation

and

criminal

history

submitted

by

the

Given Cook’s Grade B

category

of

IV,

the

district

court properly calculated Cook’s policy statement range as 12 to
18

months’

imprisonment.

Furthermore,

the

district

court

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.
Moreover,

Cook

reasonableness

has

not

afforded

to

rebutted
the

the

presumption

within-policy

sentence imposed by the district court.

statement

of
range

See United States v.

Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).
In

accordance

with

Anders,

we

have

reviewed

the

entire

record in this case and have found no meritorious grounds for
appeal.

We

therefore

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Cook, in writing, of the
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
further review.

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
3

for

leave

to

withdraw

from

Appeal: 16-4565

Doc: 22

representation.

Filed: 02/21/2017

Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof

was served on Cook.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Pg: 4 of 4

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4