UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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 
3

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 
4

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED