UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4414
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN ROBINSON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J.
Conrad, Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00062-RJC-2)
Submitted: October 9, 2008 Decided: October 22, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randolph M. Lee, LAW OFFICE OF RANDOLPH M. LEE, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, David A. Brown, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, John Robinson pled
guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The
district court sentenced him to 262 months in prison. Robinson
appeals, claiming the district court abused its discretion by
denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Finding no
abuse of discretion, we affirm.
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 once the plea has been accepted by the district court.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d); United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408,
413 (4th Cir. 2003). Rather, the defendant bears the burden of
demonstrating that a “fair and just reason” supports his request
to withdraw his plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). 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) 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
2
(6) whether it will inconvenience the court and waste
judicial resources.
United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). To
show a fair and just reason to withdraw a plea based on
ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must demonstrate
“(1) that his counsel’s performance fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness and (2) that he was prejudiced in the
sense that there was a reasonable probability that, but for
counsel’s error, he would not have pleaded guilty and would have
insisted upon going to trial.” United States v. Lambey, 974
F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks,
alterations and citation omitted).
Robinson received an adequate Fed. R. Crim. P. 11
hearing, which creates a strong presumption that his guilty plea
was final and binding. See id. Robinson argues, however, that
his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was
unaware of a potential defense to the charges against him.
Robinson further alleges that he did not enjoy the close
assistance of competent counsel. We find that Robinson failed
to either offer “credible evidence that his plea was not knowing
and voluntary,” Moore, 931 F.2d at 248, or demonstrate “that his
counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness,” Lambey, 974 F.2d at 1394 (internal quotation
marks omitted). In addition, Robinson’s present allegations are
3
belied by his statements at the plea hearing, see Blackledge v.
Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977), which “carry a strong
presumption of verity.” Accordingly, we conclude that the
district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that
Robinson failed to present a fair and just reason that his
guilty plea should be withdrawn.
We therefore affirm Robinson’s 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
4