United States v. Cook

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Cook

22 F. App'x 3

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 15, 2001

DocketNo. 01-3018

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 22 F. App'x 3 (United States v. Cook) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Cook, 22 F. App'x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order denying appellant’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be affirmed. The only issue raised on this appeal is whether counsel for appellant’s direct appeal of his conviction and sentence provided ineffective assistance in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by failing to challenge the district court’s decision to allow Detective Thomas’ expert testimony. Even assuming counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, appellant has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional error, the result of the appeal would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Smith v. Robins, 528 U.S. 259, 285, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See Fed. R.App. P. 36; D.C.Cir. Rule 36(b). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order denying appellant’s motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 be affirmed. The only issue raised on this appeal is whether counsel for appellant’s direct appeal of his conviction and sentence provided ineffective assistance in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution by failing to challenge the district court’s decision to allow Detective Thomas’ expert testimony. Even assuming counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, appellant has not shown that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional error, the result of the appeal would have been different. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-96, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Smith v. Robins, 528 U.S. 259, 285, 120 S.Ct. 746, 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000).

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F. App'x 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cook-cadc-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack