United States v. Cooke

── United States v. Cooke ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: General 25-946-cr United States v. Cooke UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 28th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: DENNY CHIN, EUNICE C. LEE, ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judges. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, -v- 25-946-cr WILLIAM COOKE, Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x FOR APPELLEE: SEAN C. ELDRIDGE, Assistant United States Attorney (Charles M. Kruly, Assistant United States Attorney, on the brief), for Michael DiGiacomo, United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, Buffalo, NY. FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT: JAY S. OVSIOVITCH, Federal Public Defender's Office, Western District of New York, Rochester, NY. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Geraci, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED in part and VACATED in part, and the case is REMANDED. Defendant-appellant William Cooke appeals from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (Geraci, J.) convicting him, following his plea of guilty, of one count of violating the terms and conditions of his supervised release. The district court sentenced Cooke to time served followed by 32 months of supervised release on the same terms as previously imposed, with the additional conditions that (1) he undergo a mental health evaluation and receive treatment if recommended, and (2) he "participate in a mentoring program as [his] attorney suggested." Joint App'x at 54. As relevant here, that latter condition in the written judgment reads: "The defendant shall participate in and complete a mentorship program if deemed necessary by the Court or Probation Officer." Id. at 60. On appeal, Cooke challenges only the mentorship condition, arguing that: (1) the condition lacks a reasonable relationship to his conviction; (2) the condition is vague as imposed; and (3) the written judgment improperly delegated sentencing authority to a 2 probation officer. As discussed further below, the government consents to a limited remand. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to expla