UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4792
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CIRO GAMALIEL GARCIA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District
Judge. (6:05-cr-00006-NKM)
Submitted: April 9, 2007 Decided: May 3, 2007
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas E. Wray, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Edward A. Lustig, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ciro Gamaliel Garcia pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute methamphetamine, 28 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and was
sentenced to 300 months in prison. He now appeals, claiming that
the district court should have allowed him to withdraw his guilty
plea because he allegedly did not understand the plea agreement.
We affirm.
I.
Our review is for abuse of discretion. See United
States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). Withdrawal
of a guilty plea is not a matter of right. Id. The defendant
bears the burden of showing a “fair and just reason” for the
withdrawal of his plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “[A] ‘fair
and just’ reason . . . is one that essentially challenges . . . the
fairness of the Rule 11 proceeding.” United States v. Lambey, 974
F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). An appropriately
conducted Rule 11 proceeding, however, raises a strong presumption
that the guilty plea is final and binding. Id.
Courts consider six factors in determining whether
withdrawal of a guilty plea is proper:
(1) whether the defendant has offered credible evidence
that his plea was not knowing or otherwise involuntary;
(2) whether the defendant has credibly asserted his legal
innocence; (3) whether there has been a delay between
entry of the plea and filing of the motion; (4) whether
the defendant has had close assistance of counsel; (5)
- 2 -
whether withdrawal will cause prejudice to the
government; and (6) whether withdrawal will inconvenience
the court and waste judicial resources.
Ubakanma, 215 F.3d at 424 (quoting United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d
245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991)(footnote omitted)).
With these factors in mind, we have reviewed the record
and the parties’ briefs on appeal. We conclude that Garcia did not
demonstrate a “fair and just” reason for withdrawing his guilty
plea, and that there was no abuse of discretion.
II.
Accordingly, we affirm Garcia’s conviction. 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
- 3 -