2010 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-25-2010

USA v. Eric Cook

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 09-3960

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2010 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Eric Cook" (2010). 2010 Decisions. Paper 2020.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2010/2020
1

HLD-056(December 2009) NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3960

___________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

ERIC COOK,

Appellant

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

(W.D. Pa. Crim. No. 03-cr-00131)

District Judge: Honorable Alan N. Bloch 

____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant 

to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6

December 30, 2009

Before: Chief Judge SCIRICA, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: January 25, 2010)

___________

OPINION

___________

PER CURIAM.

Eric Cook, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the

United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denying his motion
 On July 28, 2009, Cook filed a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of 1

appeal. The District Court denied the motion, explaining that the 30-day period that it

was authorized to extend the time to appeal had passed. 

2

for transcripts. We will affirm.

In 2003, Cook pleaded guilty in District Court to possession of a firearm by

a convicted felon. He was sentenced to 62 months in prison and three years of supervised

release. Cook was later released from prison, and, in 2008, he was arrested on drugrelated charges. The Probation Office petitioned for Cook’s arrest because he had

violated the conditions of his supervised release. On May 21, 2009, the District Court

held a hearing on the revocation of Cook’s supervised release. The District Court found

that Cook had violated the conditions of his supervised release and ordered that he serve

24 months in prison. Cook did not appeal.1

In September 2009, Cook filed a pro se motion requesting that a transcript

of his revocation hearing be prepared and provided to him free of cost. Cook stated that

he sought the transcript for purposes of preparing a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255

challenging the revocation of his supervised release. The District Court denied the

motion, noting that there was nothing pending before the court at that time. This appeal

followed.

Cook asserts that he has a valid ineffective assistance of counsel claim

based upon counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal from the District Court’s order

revoking his supervised release. Cook contends that there is insufficient evidence
3

supporting the revocation. Cook also asserts that counsel failed to challenge evidence

presented at his hearing where a witness was not made available for cross-examination.

If Cook had filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 raising his

ineffective assistance of counsel claims and he was granted in forma pauperis status, the

transcript would have been prepared at the government’s expense only if the trial judge

certified that the suit was not frivolous and that the transcript was needed to decide the

issues presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). The District Court did not abuse its discretion

in denying Cook’s motion for transcripts where there was no pending § 2255 motion and

his motion for transcripts did not set forth the claims he wished to pursue. 

Because this appeal does not raise a substantial question, we will affirm the

District Court’s order.