UNPUBLISHED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 MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. He claims abuse of the district court’s
discretion in its refusal to grant him an acceptance of
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, or significantly outside the
2
[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. His
87-month sentence, which is within the applicable guidelines
range, may be presumed reasonable by this court on appeal.
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 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 the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4