United States v. Johnson

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  Plaintiff-Appellee, v.  No. 01-4865 WILLIAM WAYNE JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CR-01-53) Submitted: April 16, 2002 Decided: May 1, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. COUNSEL Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appel- lee. 2 UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). OPINION PER CURIAM: William Wayne Johnson pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2241(a) (West 2000). Approximately three months after entering his plea of guilty, Johnson moved to withdraw his plea, which the district court denied. Johnson appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We review a district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). The defendant has the burden of demonstrat- ing "a fair and just reason" for withdrawal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e); Ubakanma, 215 F.3d at 424. A "fair and just reason" is one that chal- lenges the fairness of the guilty plea colloquy conducted pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995). To determine whether a defendant has shown a fair and just reason for withdrawal, a trial court should consider the six factors set out in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). Ubakanma, 215 F.3d at 424. Although all the factors in Moore must be given appropriate weight, the key to determining whether to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is whether the Rule 11 hearing was properly conducted. Puckett, 61 F.3d at 1099. This court closely scrutinizes the Rule 11 colloquy. An adequate Rule 11 proceeding creates a strong presumption that the guilty plea is binding. United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992). In this case, the district court conducted a thorough Rule 11 inquiry. In ruling on Johnson’s motion to withdraw his plea, the dis- trict court considered each of the Moore factors and concluded that Johnson had failed to show a fair and just reason to allow him to with- draw his plea. Our review of the record convinces us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion. UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON 3 Accordingly, we affirm Johnson’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu- ment would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED