UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4287
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CHARLES G. FAGAN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CR-
04-197-CCB)
Submitted: June 30, 2006 Decided: July 20, 2006
Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Ray Ford, Camp Springs, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J.
Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Steven H. Levin, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Charles Fagan pled guilty to making false, fictitious,
and fraudulent claims against the United States, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 287 (2000), making false statements, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. § 1001 (West 2000 & Supp. 2006), two counts of mail fraud,
in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341 (West Supp. 2006), and bank
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (2000). The district court
sentenced him to a total of forty-two months of imprisonment.
Fagan appeals his convictions, asserting that the district court
erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, that his
guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary, and that the Government
breached the plea agreement. We affirm.
Fagan asserts that the district court erred by denying
his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Specifically, he contends
that counsel provided ineffective assistance by informing him that
there were insufficient funds to proceed to trial, which rendered
his plea involuntary.* We have thoroughly reviewed the record and
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Fagan’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United
States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000).
Next, Fagan contends that his plea was not made knowingly
and voluntarily because the district court failed to inform him
*
Fagan also contends that the district court erred by
crediting former counsel’s affidavit over his own. We find no
merit to this contention.
- 2 -
that the Government had to prove each element of each offense
charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Allegations of violations of
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are reviewed for
plain error where, as here, Fagan did not rely on this ground when
he moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court. United
States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59 (2002) (holding that challenge to
denial of motion to withdraw guilty plea based on ground not raised
in district court reviewed for plain error). Our review of the
transcript of the plea colloquy convinces us that Fagan knowingly
and voluntarily entered his plea. See United States v. DeFusco,
949 F.2d 114, 116 (4th Cir. 1991) (according “deference to the
trial court’s decision as to how best to conduct the mandated
[Rule 11] colloquy with the defendant”).
Finally, Fagan asserts that the Government breached the
plea agreement by arguing at sentencing that the amount of the
intended loss exceeded $1,000,000 when the plea agreement contained
a stipulation that the amount of intended loss was between $400,000
and $1,000,000. We review this claim for plain error and find none
because Fagan received the benefit of his bargain by being
sentenced in accordance with the stipulation in the plea agreement.
See United States v. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 547-48 (4th Cir. 2005)
(discussing plain error standard of review); United States v.
Peglera, 33 F.3d 412, 413 (4th Cir. 1994) (stating that court
interprets plea agreements according to contract law and “each
- 3 -
party should receive the benefit of its bargain”) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
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
- 4 -