UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-4761
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HASSAN L. RICHARDSON, a/k/a Hassi,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00155-JFA-16)
Submitted: June 15, 2009 Decided: July 9, 2009
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joshua S. Kendrick, JOSHUA SNOW KENDRICK, PC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Hassan L. Richardson
pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
and to distribute fifty grams or more of cocaine base (“crack”),
five kilograms or more of cocaine, and a quantity of marijuana,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2006). The district court
sentenced Richardson to 240 months in prison. Richardson timely
appealed.
Richardson’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the
adequacy of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing and contending that
the district court abused its discretion by denying Richardson’s
motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Richardson was advised of
his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but he did not
file one. Finding no meritorious grounds for appeal, we affirm.
While raising the adequacy of the Rule 11 hearing as a
potential issue, counsel points to no error. Our careful review
of the record convinces us that the district court fully
complied with the mandates of Rule 11 in accepting Richardson’s
guilty plea and ensured that Richardson entered his plea
knowingly and voluntarily and that the plea was supported by an
independent factual basis. United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d
114, 116, 119-20 (4th Cir. 1991).
2
Turning to the district court’s denial of Richardson’s
motion to withdraw his guilty plea, withdrawal of a guilty plea
is not a matter of right. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d
421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). The defendant bears the burden of
showing a “fair and just reason” for the withdrawal of his
guilty plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “[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) (en banc). An
appropriately conducted Rule 11 proceeding, however, “raise[s] a
strong presumption that the plea is final and binding.” Id. at
1394.
Here, the district court applied the factors courts
must consider in determining whether to permit withdrawal of a
guilty plea. See Ubakanma, 215 F.3d at 424. Our review of the
record convinces us that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Richardson’s motion to withdraw. See
United States v. Dyess, 478 F.3d 224, 237 (4th Cir. 2007)
(stating standard of review).
In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record
for any meritorious issues for appeal and have found none.
Thus, we affirm the district court’s judgment. This court
requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his
right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for
3
further review. If the client 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 the client. 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