Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01172/USCOURTS-ca10-91-01172-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Douglas Cook
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D 

United States C,oμrt ~ Appeab 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

vs. 

ROBERT DOUGLAS COOK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

TENTH CIRCUIT Tent.'i C1rcwt 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

SEr> 0 3 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1172 

D.C. No. 90-CR-372 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.** 

On November 7, 1988, defendant-appellant Robert Douglas Cook 

was convicted of possession with intent to distribute a controlled 

substance. See 18 u.s.c. S 841(a)(l) & (b)(l)(b). Defendant did 

not file a direct appeal. He now seeks to have the conviction set 

aside or vacated pursuant to 28 u.s.c. S 2255. The district court 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

** After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not assist the 

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th 

Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without 

oral argument. 

Appellate Case: 91-1172 Document: 010110084258 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 1 
,. 

j 

dismissed the petition on the ground that defendant failed to 

state a basis for relief. We affirm. 

Prior to defendant's trial he moved for suppression of key 

evidence seized from his home contending that the government 

violated his fourth amendment rights by executing a search warrant 

which was not supported by probable cause. The district court 

suppressed the evidence, but we addressed the matter on 

interlocutory appeal and found no violation. United States v. 

Cook, 854 F.2d 371 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1006 

(1989). Defendant now alleges that the government (1) violated 

the "knock and announce" rule, 18 u.s.c. § 3109, in executing the 

warrant, and (2) violated his fourth amendment rights by failing 

to obtain a separate warrant to search a sealed container within 

his home. He also contends that his sixth amendment right to 

effective assistance of counsel was violated because counsel 

failed to raise the above arguments at trial. 

Defendant has waived the "knock and announce" argument and 

the "separate warrant" argument because he failed to raise the 

arguments at the suppression hearing. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 

12(b)(3) & (f). He therefore is procedurally barred from bringing 

the claims now in his§ 2255 habeas petition unless he is able to 

demonstrate cause for the failure to raise the arguments below and 

prejudice resulting therefrom. See Davis v. United States, 411 

U.S. 233 (1973) (applying cause and prejudice standard to 

procedural bar in§ 2255 context to claim waived pursuant to Fed. 

R. Crim. P. 12(b) (2) & (f)). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-1172 Document: 010110084258 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 2 
,. 

Defendant argues that ineffective assistance of counsel 

constitutes cause in this case, yet he has not directed our 

attention to an "objective factor external to the defense" which 

caused his counsel to fail to raise either claim before the 

district court. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986) (§ 2254 

petition). See also Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S. Ct. 2546 (1991). 

Defendant has not demonstrated that the "factual or legal basis" 

of the two claims was unavailable to counsel. Murrayf 477 u~s. at 

488. 

With regard to the "knock and announce" argument, defendant 

makes only the bare allegation that the government violated the 

rule. In any event, the record belies defendant's conclusory 

allegation, and therefore, he has not demonstrated prejudice. 

Upon review of the testimony at the suppression hearing which 

centered on the probable cause supporting the warrant, we find 

preliminary testimony which indicates that the searching officer 

announced his presence before entering the defendant's home. IR. 

doc. 4 at 20. 

Regarding defendant's second argument, defendant cannot 

demonstrate prejudice because the government need not obtain 

separate warrants to search containers within premises described 

in a search warrant. See United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 821 

(1982); United States v. Gentry, 642 F.2d 385 (10th Cir. 1981). 

Defendant has not challenged the warrant's particularity of 

description of the premises or items to be seized. Instead, he 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-1172 Document: 010110084258 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 3 
• 

flatly contends that separate containers within searched premises 

necessitate separate warrants. This argument is legally baseless. 

In sum, even construing defendant's prose pleadings 

liberally,~ Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), we find no 

basis for either of defendant's arguments. Therefore, in addition 

to his failure to demonstrate cause, defendant has not 

demonstrated prejudice from counsel's failure to raise the claims. 

And the failure to raise the claims does not constitute an 

independent claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the 

standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 

(1984). 

AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Bobby R. Baldock 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-1172 Document: 010110084258 Date Filed: 09/03/1991 Page: 4