Filed: Mar. 09, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4241 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW J. MUSANTE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 15-4247 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW J. MUSANTE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00193-RJC-1; 3:12-cr-00386-RJC-4) Submitted: February 29, 2016 Decided
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4241 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW J. MUSANTE, Defendant - Appellant. No. 15-4247 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MATTHEW J. MUSANTE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00193-RJC-1; 3:12-cr-00386-RJC-4) Submitted: February 29, 2016 Decided:..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4241
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW J. MUSANTE,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 15-4247
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW J. MUSANTE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00193-RJC-1; 3:12-cr-00386-RJC-4)
Submitted: February 29, 2016 Decided: March 9, 2016
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., RUDOLF WIDENHOUSE & FIALKO, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose,
United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Matthew J. Musante was charged with conspiracy to commit
insider trading, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), and
transactional money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957
(2012). (J.A. 30). Musante entered a guilty plea, but
subsequently moved to withdraw his plea, arguing that a
recently-decided Second Circuit case, United States v. Newman,
773 F.3d 438 (2d Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 242
(2015), suggested a defense to the conspiracy charge of which he
had not been informed. The district court denied his motion.
We affirm.
We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
to withdraw a guilty plea. United States v. Nicholson,
676 F.3d
376, 383 (4th Cir. 2012). To withdraw a guilty plea before
sentencing, a defendant must “show a fair and just reason for
requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “The
defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that withdrawal
should be granted.” United States v. Thompson-Riviere,
561 F.3d
345, 348 (4th Cir. 2009) (brackets and internal quotation marks
omitted). Where, as here, the district court substantially
complied with the Rule 11 requirements, the defendant must
overcome a strong presumption that his guilty plea is final and
binding. United States v. Lambey,
974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir.
1992) (en banc).
3
In deciding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, the
district court must consider the following six factors:
(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 the defendant has
had close assistance of competent 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 (4th Cir. 1991). The first
factor is perhaps the most important, as “the fairness of the
Rule 11 proceeding is the key factor in the review of the denial
of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea.” United States v.
Wilson,
81 F.3d 1300, 1306 (4th Cir. 1996). It is this factor
on which Musante places the balance of his argument. *
Musante argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his
plea because his guilty plea to the charge of conspiracy to
commit insider trading was not knowing and voluntary, as he was
not informed of a possible defense based on his ignorance of any
benefit to the “insider” from the information improperly
disclosed. The district court rejected this argument,
concluding, in essence, that the factual basis for the plea
*
Musante also argues that the district court erred in
assessing the third and fifth Moore factors, but these factors,
even if decided in Musante’s favor, would not affect our
decision.
4
would not support the defense recognized in Newman. Our review
of the record convinces us that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in so concluding.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling denying
the motion to withdraw the guilty plea. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5