2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-25-2010 

# U SA v . E ric C o ok P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3960

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . E r ic C oo k " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 2020. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/20201

HLD- 0 5 6 ( De c e mb e r 2 0 0 9 ) NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 3960

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

vs. E RI C C OOK, A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( W . D . Pa. C r i m . N o. 03- cr - 00131) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A l an N . B l och

____________________________________ S u b m itt e d f

o r P o ss ib le S u m m a ryA c tio n P u rsu a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

D ece m ber30, 2009 B efor e: C hi ef J udge SC I R I C A , W E I S and G A R T H , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed: J anuary25, 2010)

___________ OP I NI ON

___________ P E R C U R I A M.

E r i c C ook, a fe der al pr i s onerpr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s an or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s m ot i onO n J ul y28, 2009, C ook fi l ed a mot i on foran ext ens i on of t i m e t o fi l e a not i ce of 1 a p p e a l. T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n , ex p lain in g th a t th e 3 0 -d a yp e rio d th a t it w a s a u th o ri z e d to e x te n d th e tim e to a p p e a l h a d p a s s e d . 2 f o rt r a n s c r i p t s . W e wi l l a f f i r m. I n 2003, C ook pl eade d gui l t yi n D i s t r i ctC our tt o pos s es s i on of a f i r earm by a convi ct ed fe l on. H e w as s ent ence d t o 62 m ont hs i n pr i s on and thr ee y ear s of s upervi s ed r el eas e. C ook w as l at err el eas ed fr om pr i s on, and, i n 2008, he w as arr es t ed on drugr el at ed cha r ges . T he Pr obat i on O ffi ce pe t i t i oned forC ook’ s arr es tbeca us e he ha d v iolated th e c o n d it ion s o f h is sup erv ised release . O n M ay2 1 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rt hel d a hea r i ng on t he r evoca t i on of C ook’ s s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tfound t hatC ook had vi ol at ed the condi t i ons of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e and or der ed thathe s er ve 2 4 m o n th s in p riso n . C o o k d id n o t ap p e a l. 1

I n Sept ember2009, C ook fi l ed a pr o s e mot i on r eques t i ng t hata tr ans cr i pt of hi s r evoca t i on hear i ng be pr epar ed and pr ovi ded t o hi m fr ee of cos t . C ook s t at ed that he s oughtt he tr ans cr i ptforpurpos es of pr epar i ng a mot i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2255 chal l engi ng t he r evoca t i on of hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. T he D i s t r i ctC our tdeni ed the m ot i on, not i ng t hatt her e w as not hi ng pendi ng befor e the courtatt hatt i m e. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. C o o k a ss e rts th a t h e h a s a v a lid in e f f e c tiv e a ss ista n c e o f

c o u n se l cla im bas ed upon couns el ’ s fai l ur e t o fi l e a not i ce of appea l fr om t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der r evoki ng hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e. C ook cont ends t hatt her e i s i ns uffi ci entevi dence3

s uppor t i ng t he r evoca t i on. C ook al s o as s er t s t hatcouns el fai l ed t o chal l enge e vi dence pr es ent ed athi s hear i ng w her e a w i t nes s w as notm ade a vai l abl e forcr os s - exami nat i on.

If C o o k h a d f

iled a m o tio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 ra isin g h is i neff ect i ve as s i s t ance of couns el cl ai m s and he w as gr ant ed i n for m a paupe r i s s t atus , t he t r ans cr i ptw oul d have be en pr epar ed att he governm ent ’ s expens e onl yi f the tr i al j udge cert i fi ed thatt he s ui tw as notfr i vol ous and thatt he tr ans cr i ptw as neede d t o deci de the i s s ues pr es ent ed. See 28 U . S. C . § 753( f) . T he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng C ook’ s m ot i on fort r ans cr i pt s w her e ther e w as no pendi ng § 2255 m ot i on and h is m o tio n f

o r t ra n s c ri p ts d id n o t s e t f o rt h th e c la im s h e w is h e d to p u rs u e . B eca us e thi s appea l does notr ai s e a s ubs t ant i al ques t i on, w e w i l l aff i r m t he D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er.