4th Cir.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GARY DUANE COOL

April 28, 2026 ·25-4640 ·Per Curiam · By James Taylor

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Gary Duane Cool's conviction for methamphetamine trafficking, finding no plain error in the district court's acceptance of his guilty plea. The court held that the magistrate judge fully complied with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, ensuring the plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by a sufficient factual basis.

Gary Duane Cool pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute more than 50 grams of methamphetamine, a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), (b)(1)(A). The district court sentenced him to 188 months of imprisonment, which fell within his advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Cool's counsel filed a brief under the standard established in Anders v. California, stating there were no meritorious grounds for appeal but raising a question regarding the validity of the guilty plea. Cool was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but chose not to do so. The government declined to file a brief. The case was submitted without oral argument.

Because Cool did not move to withdraw his plea or challenge it before the district court, the Fourth Circuit reviewed the claim for plain error. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, a district court must conduct a colloquy to ensure a defendant understands the nature of the charge, the penalties involved, and the rights being waived, while also confirming the plea is voluntary and supported by a factual basis. The court noted that a properly conducted Rule 11 colloquy raises a strong presumption that a plea is final and binding. In this instance, the magistrate judge fully complied with Rule 11, finding that Cool's plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by an independent factual basis. Consequently, the appellate court concluded there was no error, plain or otherwise, in the acceptance of the plea. The court also reviewed the entire record pursuant to Anders and found no other meritorious grounds for appeal.

The judgment of conviction stands. The decision reinforces the finality of guilty pleas where the district court has strictly adhered to Rule 11 colloquy requirements. The court issued specific instructions that counsel must inform Cool in writing of his right to petition the Supreme Court for further review. If Cool requests a petition but counsel believes it is frivolous, counsel may move to withdraw from representation, provided they serve a copy of the motion on Cool.