UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4754
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NDUBUISI JOSEPH OKAFOR,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:07-cr-00190-AW-1)
Submitted: April 17, 2009 Decided: May 14, 2009
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pleasant S. Brodnax, III, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod
J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Sandra Wilkinson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dr. Ndubuisi Joseph Okafor appeals his conviction
following his guilty plea to tax evasion in violation of 26
U.S.C. § 7201 (2006), filing false income tax returns in
violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (2006), and health care fraud
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 (2006). The sole issue Okafor
raises on appeal is whether the district court erred by denying
his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
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 has no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea.”
United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 413 (4th Cir. 2003)
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Once the
district court has accepted a defendant’s guilty plea, it is
within the court’s discretion whether to grant a motion to
withdraw it. United States v. Battle, 499 F.3d 315, 319 (4th
Cir. 2007). The defendant bears the burden of showing a “fair
and just reason” for withdrawing his guilty plea. Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(d)(2)(B); Battle, 499 F.3d at 319. “[A] ‘fair and just’
reason . . . is one that essentially challenges . . . the
fairness of the Rule 11 proceeding.” United States v. Lambey,
974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992).
2
In deciding whether to permit a defendant to withdraw
his guilty plea, a district court considers:
(1) whether the defendant has offered credible
evidence that his plea was not knowing or otherwise
involuntary; (2) whether the defendant has credibly
asserted his legal innocence; (3) whether there has
been a delay between the entry of the plea and filing
of the motion; (4) whether the defendant has had close
assistance of counsel; (5) whether withdrawal will
cause prejudice to the government; and (6) whether
withdrawal will inconvenience the court and waste
judicial resources.
United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991).
The record discloses that the district court’s hearing
held pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 was extensive, as was the
subsequent hearing on the motion to withdraw. Further, we
afford Okafor’s guilty plea a strong presumption of validity.
We find no credible evidence of ineffectiveness of counsel,
undue pressure, lack of competence, or actual innocence.
After reviewing the Moore factors and the district
court’s articulated reasons for denying Okafor’s motion to
withdraw, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.
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