Third Circuit disposition — 093960np-pdf

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HLD-056(December 2009) NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

-- 1 of 3 --

On July 28, 2009, Cook filed a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of1
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 drug-
related 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

-- 2 of 3 --

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.

-- 3 of 3 --