UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-5139
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RAY ROGER NICHOLAS LONDON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:11-cr-00036-MSD-FBS-1)
Submitted: April 25, 2012 Decided: May 3, 2012
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fernando Groene, FERNANDO GROENE, PC, Williamsburg, Virginia,
for Appellant. Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney,
Bradley D. Price, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ray Roger Nicholas London pled guilty without a
written plea agreement to reentry of a removed alien, in
violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a), (b)(2), 1101(a)(43) (2006) and
18 U.S.C. § 16 (2006). He was sentenced to fifty-seven months’
imprisonment. On appeal his sole claim is that the district
court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw
his guilty plea. We affirm.
“A defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a
guilty plea.” United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 413 (4th
Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks omitted). Rather, once the
district court has accepted a guilty plea, it is within the
district court’s discretion whether to grant a motion to
withdraw it based on the defendant’s showing of a “fair and just
reason.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); United States v. Battle,
499 F.3d 315, 319 (4th Cir. 2007).
When considering whether to allow a defendant to
withdraw a guilty plea, the trial court must conduct a six-
factor analysis:
(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 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).
Although all of the Moore factors should be considered, the key
one is whether the Rule 11 hearing was properly conducted.
Bowman, 348 F.3d at 414. Thus, this court closely scrutinizes
the Rule 11 colloquy and attaches a strong presumption that the
plea is final and binding if the Rule 11 proceeding is adequate.
United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992).
Having reviewed the parties’ briefs and the materials
submitted to the court, we conclude the district court properly
weighed the Moore factors and did not abuse its discretion in
denying London’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion
to withdraw the plea and affirm London’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
3