Filed: Nov. 08, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4136 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY ALLEN ADAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:04-cr-10064-jpj) Submitted: October 18, 2006 Decided: November 8, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick T
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-4136 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TONY ALLEN ADAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:04-cr-10064-jpj) Submitted: October 18, 2006 Decided: November 8, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick T...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4136
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TONY ALLEN ADAMS, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge. (2:04-cr-10064-jpj)
Submitted: October 18, 2006 Decided: November 8, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., FREDERICK T. HEBLICH, JR., P.C.,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United
States Attorney, Anthony P. Giorno, Assistant United States
Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tony Allen Adams, Jr. pled guilty to one count of
assault, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6)(2000), and one count
of intimidation of a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)
(2000). On appeal, he claims the district court abused its
discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Because we do not find an abuse of discretion, we affirm.
We review the district court’s denial of the motion to
withdraw the guilty plea for an abuse of discretion. United
States v. Ubakanma,
215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). Withdrawal
of a guilty plea is not a matter of right.
Id. (citing United
States v. Moore,
931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991)). 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, raises a
strong presumption that the guilty plea is final and binding.
Id.
Courts consider six factors in determining whether to permit the
withdrawal of a guilty plea:
(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
entry of the plea and filing of the motion; (4) whether
the defendant has had close assistance of counsel;
- 2 -
(5) whether withdrawal will cause prejudice to the
government; and (6) whether withdrawal will inconvenience
the court and waste judicial resources.
Ubakanma, 215 F.3d at 424 (citing
Moore, 931 F.2d at 248) (footnote
omitted).
Because the Rule 11 proceeding was appropriately
conducted, there is a presumption that Adams’ guilty plea was final
and binding. Adams failed to show his plea was anything but
knowing and voluntary. He also failed to show he was actually
innocent of the offenses or that his counsel was ineffective.
Accordingly, we affirm the convictions 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 -