UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4456
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
KRISHNA PILLAI BALAKRISHNAN NAIR,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00177-CMH-5)
Submitted: February 13, 2009 Decided: March 4, 2009
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John O. Iweanoge, II, IWEANOGE LAW CENTER, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Daniel
Joseph Grooms, III, Edmund P. Power, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Krishna Pillai Balakrishnan Nair appeals his
conviction based on his guilty plea to one count of engaging in
a racketeering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
(2006). Two months after entering his plea, Nair filed two
motions to withdraw his plea. Following an evidentiary hearing,
the district court denied Nair’s motions and sentenced him to
twelve months and one day of imprisonment. Nair timely noted
his appeal.
On appeal, Nair first claims that, during his plea
hearing, the district court failed to inquire into whether he
was under the influence of any medications or drugs that might
have affected his ability to enter a voluntary plea. Nair’s
claim is without merit. When informed that a defendant is under
the influence of medication, a district court must make further
inquiry during the Rule 11 proceeding to determine the
defendant’s competence to plead guilty. United States v. Damon,
191 F.3d 561, 564 (4th Cir. 1999). Nothing in the Rule 11
transcript indicates Nair was under the influence of medication
or that he was impaired. Additionally, neither Nair’s attorney
nor the district court observed any potential impairment during
Nair’s plea hearing. Accordingly, the district court did not
err in failing to question Nair to ascertain whether he was
under the influence of drugs or medication.
2
Nair also claims the district court erred in denying
his motions to withdraw his guilty plea. This court reviews a
district court’s refusal to allow a defendant to withdraw a
guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wilson,
81 F.3d 1300, 1305 (4th Cir. 1996). A defendant may withdraw a
guilty plea before sentence is imposed if “the defendant can
show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.”
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). This court has established six
factors to be considered in granting or denying a motion to
withdraw a guilty plea. United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245,
248 (4th Cir. 1991).
Our review of the record leads us to conclude that
Nair failed to present credible evidence that his plea was not
knowing and voluntary. The remaining Moore factors also do not
weigh in favor of granting Nair’s motion to withdraw his guilty
plea. Nair fails to establish that he did not have close
assistance of competent counsel, and he cannot credibly assert
legal innocence as he stipulated to the statement of facts
during his plea hearing and admitted during the evidentiary
hearing to committing the acts in the statement of facts that
supported his plea agreement. Finally, the delay between Nair’s
plea and the filing of his motions does not weigh in favor of
granting his motions to withdraw, particularly in light of his
3
failure to present credible evidence that his plea was not
knowing or voluntary.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument as the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4