United States v. Gary Cool

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 28, 2026
• Docket: 25-4640
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-4640 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/28/2026 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-4640

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GARY DUANE COOL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Thomas S. Kleeh, Chief District Judge. (2:24-cr-00011-TSK-MJA-1)

Submitted: April 23, 2026 Decided: April 28, 2026

Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Katy J. Cimino, Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4640 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/28/2026 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Gary Duane Cool pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possession with intent

to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a),

(b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Cool to 188 months’ imprisonment, within his

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Cool’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds

for appeal but questioning whether Cool’s guilty plea is valid. Cool was advised of his

right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government has

declined to file a brief. We affirm.

Because Cool did not move to withdraw his plea “or otherwise challenge his plea

before the district court,” our review is for plain error. United States v. Garrett, 141 F.4th

96, 103 (4th Cir. 2025). Before accepting a guilty plea, the district court must conduct a

plea colloquy in which it informs the defendant of—and ensures that the defendant

understands—the nature of the charge to which he is pleading guilty, the minimum and

maximum penalties he faces, and the rights he is relinquishing by pleading guilty. Fed. R.

Crim. P. 11(b)(1). The court must also ensure that the plea is voluntary and not the result

of threats, force, or promises outside of those in the plea agreement, Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(b)(2), and that a sufficient factual basis supports the plea, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3).

“[A] properly conducted Rule 11 colloquy raises a strong presumption that the plea is final

and binding.” United States v. Taylor-Sanders, 88 F.4th 516, 522 (4th Cir. 2023) (internal

quotation marks omitted).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4640 Doc: 24 Filed: 04/28/2026 Pg: 3 of 3

Here, the magistrate judge fully complied with Rule 11 and properly found that

Cool’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. *

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err—plainly or otherwise—in

accepting the plea.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have

found no meritorious grounds for appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

This court requires that counsel inform Cool, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme

Court of the United States for further review. If Cool 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 Cool.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* Cool consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.