UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-4576
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES A. GHOLSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis-
trict of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior Dis-
trict Judge. (CR-99-178)
Submitted: May 31, 2001 Decided: June 18, 2001
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sol Zalel Rosen, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey,
United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States
Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles A. Gholson pled guilty to possession with intent to
distribute cocaine base (with previous drug distribution con-
viction). On appeal, he alleges that the district court erred by
denying his later motion to withdraw his guilty plea and that he
received ineffective assistance of counsel. Gholson appeals from
his conviction and 262-month sentence. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
We do not find that the district court abused its discretion
by denying Gholson’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. United
States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). The court
applied the correct law, and we find no reversible error. United
States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991) (listing factors
to be considered). Neither do we find ineffective assistance of
counsel “conclusively appears” on the face of the record and thus
deny Gholson’s attempt to raise this issue on direct appeal.
United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir. 1999),
cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1096 (2000).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2