UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4708
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES KENNETH MILLS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00029-LHT)
Submitted: March 31, 2008 Decided: April 22, 2008
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Raquel K. Wilson, FEDERAL
DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA, INC., Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, James Kenneth Mills pled
guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in
violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999 & Supp. 2007). The
district court sentenced him to 120 months in prison. Mills timely
appealed.
Mills’ attorney has filed a brief in accordance with
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the
district court abused its discretion by denying Mills’ motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. Counsel states, however, that she has
found no meritorious grounds for appeal. Mills filed pro se
supplemental briefs challenging the denial of his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea, asserting that the district court erred
by denying the motion without a hearing, and arguing that the
district court erred by denying his motion for substitution of
counsel.
We review the 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). A defendant does not
have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea, even before
sentencing. United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.
1991). Rather, the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating
that a “fair and just reason” supports his request to withdraw his
plea. Id. In deciding whether to permit a defendant to withdraw
his guilty plea, the district court considers:
(1) whether the defendant has offered credible evidence
that his plea was not knowing or not voluntary, (2)
- 2 -
whether the defendant has credibly asserted his legal
innocence, (3) whether there has been a delay between the
entering of the plea and the filing of the motion,
(4) whether the defendant has had close assistance of
competent counsel, (5) whether withdrawal will cause
prejudice to the government, and (6) whether withdrawal
will inconvenience the court and waste judicial
resources.
Id.
Mills received an adequate Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing,
which creates a strong presumption that his guilty plea was final
and binding. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th
Cir. 1995). Mills argues, however, that his limited reading skills
inhibited his ability to understand his plea agreement and his
attorney failed to adequately explain the plea agreement and
coached Mills’ answers at the Rule 11 hearing. Mills’ allegations
are belied by his statements at the plea hearing. See Blackledge
v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (finding that statements made
during plea hearing “carry a strong presumption of verity”). We
find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
determining that Mills failed to present a fair and just reason to
withdraw his guilty plea.*
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in
this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We
therefore affirm Mills’ conviction and sentence. This court
requires that counsel inform Mills, in writing, of the right to
petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review.
*
We have reviewed the claims in Mills’ pro se supplemental
briefs and find them to be without merit.
- 3 -
If Mills requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes
that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in
this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s
motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Mills. 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 -