UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-4682
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LA BARBRA JONES,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief
District Judge. (3:10-cr-00085-JRS-2)
Submitted: January 26, 2012 Decided: February 15, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Yurachek, THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK ALLEN YURACHEK &
ASSOCIATES, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellant. Neil H.
MacBride, United States Attorney, N. George Metcalf, Richard D.
Cooke, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
La Barbra Jones appeals from her 33-month sentence for
three counts of filing false tax returns, in violation of 26
U.S.C. § 7206(1) (2006) (Counts 2, 3, 4), and one count of
assisting in filing false tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C.
§ 7206(2) (2006) (Count 64). On appeal, Jones alleges that the
district court erred by denying her motion to withdraw the
guilty plea she had entered before a magistrate judge. ∗ For the
reasons that follow, we affirm.
We discern no abuse of discretion by the district
court in its denial of Jones’ motion to withdraw her guilty
plea. See United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th
Cir. 2000) (providing review standard). After a thorough
hearing on the matter and consideration of the six factors set
out in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.
1991), the district court found that Jones failed to establish a
fair and just reason to support her request to withdraw as
required under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h).
Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
∗
Jones waived her right to plead guilty before a district
court judge and had her plea hearing conducted by a magistrate
judge. (J.A. 5; R. 39).
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3