UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5100
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL LAMPKIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:06-cr-00051-FDW-DCK-1)
Submitted: July 7, 2008 Decided: July 17, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Collin Joseph, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North
Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Lampkin pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with
intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana, in violation of 21
U.S.C.A. §§ 841(b)(1)(A), 846 (West 1999 & Supp. 2008), possession
with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A.
§ 841(b)(1)(A), possession with intent to distribute marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(b)(1)(B), and money laundering, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1956(h) (West 2000 & Supp. 2008).
Lampkin claims the district court abused its discretion in denying
his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, denying his request for a
reduction to the offense level for acceptance of responsibility,
denying his request for a reduction under the safety valve
provision of the Guidelines, denying his request for a reduction
for being a minor participant and increasing his offense level upon
finding he obstructed justice. We find no error and affirm.
We review the district court’s refusal to allow a
defendant to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion, as a
defendant has “no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea, and the
district court has discretion to decide whether a fair and just
reason exists upon which to grant a withdrawal.” United States v.
Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 413 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Because there is no indication Lampkin’s guilty plea was
anything but knowing and voluntary and because he failed to
- 2 -
sufficiently assert his innocence to the charges, we find no merit
to this claim.
With respect to the Guidelines adjustments that were
either denied by the district court or granted by the court over
Lampkin’s objection, we find there was no clear error in the
court’s findings. Because Lampkin impeded the investigation into
the drug conspiracy and because he attempted to withdraw his guilty
plea at sentencing, the court’s decision not to give him a
reduction for acceptance of responsibility or relief under the
safety valve was not clear error. Likewise, the evidence
established Lampkin obstructed justice and was eligible for an
upward adjustment. The court’s finding that Lampkin was more than
a minimal participant in the conspiracy was not clearly erroneous.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions 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 -