UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4401
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM HENRY MULDROW, a/k/a William Cooper,
a/k/a Willie, a/k/a Fred Washington,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(8:03-cr-00555-AW)
Submitted: August 22, 2007 Decided: September 4, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph J. Gigliotti, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod
J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Emily N. Glatfelter,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Henry Muldrow, a/k/a William Cooper, a/k/a
Willie, a/k/a Fred Washington, pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute five or more grams
of cocaine base and a quantity of oxycodone, in violation of § 21
U.S.C. § 846 (2000). He was sentenced to 235 months of
imprisonment. On appeal, Muldrow contends that the district court
erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We
affirm.
A defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea prior to
sentencing must demonstrate a “fair and just reason” for
withdrawal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(b); United States v. Bowman,
348 F.3d 408, 413 (4th Cir. 2003). This court closely scrutinizes
the Rule 11 colloquy and attaches a strong presumption that the
plea is final and binding if the Rule 11 proceeding is adequate.
United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995);
United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992).
Here, the transcript of the Rule 11 proceeding
demonstrates compliance with the Rule and supports the district
court’s finding that Muldrow’s guilty plea was counseled, knowing,
and voluntary. Muldrow argues on appeal that it was his implicit
understanding that he would be incarcerated for twelve to fourteen
years. The record clearly discloses, however, that the court
ensured that Muldrow understood that the parties jointly
- 2 -
recommended a sentence of 235 months, the sentence he ultimately
received. To the extent that Muldrow contends that he did not
understand the sentence expressed in months, rather than years, the
district court stated that it conducted “an extensive Rule 11
colloquy” and determined that Muldrow’s decision to plead guilty
was knowing and voluntary. See Lambey, 974 F.2d at 1394 (applying
strong presumption of validity to plea if Rule 11 colloquy proper).
We find that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in finding that Muldrow failed to meet his burden of
showing a fair and just reason for withdrawing his guilty plea.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of Muldrow’s
motion to withdraw his plea and therefore affirm his conviction and
sentence. 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 -