United States v. Joseph Cook , 677 F. App'x 107 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED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 Decided: February 21, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.” Padgett, 788 F.3d at 373
(internal quotation marks omitted). “Only if a revocation
sentence is unreasonable must we assess whether it is plainly
so.” Id. “In determining whether a revocation sentence is
unreasonable, we strike a more deferential appellate posture
than we do when reviewing original sentences.” Id. (internal
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).
2
substantive considerations 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 submitted by the
Government supported Cook’s admission. Given Cook’s Grade B
violation and criminal history 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 has not rebutted the presumption of
reasonableness afforded to the within-policy statement range
sentence imposed by the district court. 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 for leave to withdraw from
3
representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof
was served on Cook. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4