UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4511
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIMOTHY WILLIAM COOK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh,
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00014-GMG-JES-1)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nicholas J. Compton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Kristen
M. Leddy, Research and Writing Specialist, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant
United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Cook pled guilty in 2006 to possession with
intent to distribute heroin and was sentenced to 97 months’
imprisonment. He began his term of supervised release on
October 31, 2011. In April 2014, Cook’s probation officer filed
a petition to revoke his supervised release, alleging three
violations. In June 2014, an amended petition was filed, based
on two additional violations. At the hearing, Cook admitted to
the first three violations included in the original petition in
exchange for the Government’s agreement to dismiss the final
two. The parties also stipulated to a 24-month sentence. The
district court revoked Cook’s supervised release and sentenced
him to 24 months’ imprisonment. Cook noted a timely appeal.
Cook’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts that there
are no meritorious issues for appeal but questioning whether
Cook’s sentence is plainly unreasonable. Although advised of
his right to file a supplemental pro se brief, Cook has not done
so.
The district court has broad discretion to impose a
sentence upon revoking a defendant’s supervised release. United
States v. Thompson, 595 F.3d 544, 547 (4th Cir. 2010). We will
affirm a sentence imposed after revocation of supervised release
if it is within the governing statutory range and not plainly
2
unreasonable. United States v. Crudup, 461 F.3d 433, 439–40
(4th Cir. 2006). Before determining whether the sentence is
“plainly unreasonable” we must decide whether it is
unreasonable. Id. at 438. In this initial inquiry, the court
takes a more deferential posture concerning issues of fact and
the exercise of discretion than it does applying the
reasonableness review to post-conviction Guidelines sentences.
United States v. Moulden, 478 F.3d 652, 656 (4th Cir. 2007).
A review of the record leads us to conclude that
Cook’s sentence is not unreasonable, nor was it plainly so, as
he fully admitted the violations and stipulated to the sentence
which was within the statutory range. In accordance with
Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and have found
no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm the
revocation of Cook’s supervised release and his 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
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
3
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4