United States v. Cook

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: October 27, 2025
• Docket: 25-5096
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-5096 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 27, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 25-5096 (D.C. No. 4:24-CR-00005-JDR-1) CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS COOK, (N.D. Okla.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________

Before HARTZ, BACHARACH, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Christian Douglas Cook pleaded guilty to three counts of assault with a

dangerous weapon with intent to do bodily harm in Indian Country. The district

court sentenced him to 120 months in prison on each count, to be served

concurrently, followed by three years of supervised release. By plea agreement,

Mr. Cook waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence unless his sentence

exceeded the statutory maximum, which it did not. Notwithstanding the appeal

waiver, he filed a notice of appeal.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-5096 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 10/27/2025 Page: 2

The government has moved to enforce the appeal waiver under United States

v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). In response,

Mr. Cook’s counsel moved to withdraw and filed an Anders brief stating his belief

that there is no non-frivolous basis for opposing the government’s motion.

See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967) (authorizing counsel to request

permission to withdraw where counsel conscientiously examines case and determines

that appeal would be wholly frivolous). We gave Mr. Cook an opportunity to file a

pro se response to the motion to enforce. See id. To date, he has not done so.

Nonetheless, we have conducted an independent review of the plea agreement,

change of plea hearing transcript, sentencing hearing transcript, and motion to

enforce. See id. After doing so, we conclude that the requirements for enforcing the

plea waiver at this time have been satisfied: (1) this “appeal falls within the scope of

the waiver of appellate rights”; (2) Mr. Cook “knowingly and voluntarily waived his

appellate rights”; and (3) “enforcing the waiver would [not] result in a miscarriage of

justice.” Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1325. As his counsel states, Mr. Cook may properly

bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, if he believes he has one, in a

collateral proceeding. See id. at 1327 n.13.

We grant the government’s motion to enforce the plea agreement, grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw, and dismiss the appeal.

Entered for the Court

Per Curiam