Filed: Jun. 23, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4377 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT IVAN HORTON, a/k/a Shug, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00235-RLV-DCK-13) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4377 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT IVAN HORTON, a/k/a Shug, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00235-RLV-DCK-13) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4377
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT IVAN HORTON, a/k/a Shug,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00235-RLV-DCK-13)
Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sandra J. Barrett, Asheville, North Carolina; Richard E. Beam,
Jr., HUBBARD & BEAM, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Edward R. Ryan, United States Attorney, Jennifer Lynn Dillon,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Ivan Horton appeals from his conviction after
pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to
distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Horton alleges that the
district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his
guilty plea. Finding no error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s decision denying a motion
to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United
States v. Ubakanma,
215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000).
A defendant bears the burden of demonstrating to the district
court’s satisfaction that a “fair and just reason” supports his
request to withdraw. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h).
In determining whether the trial court abused its
discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we
consider the six factors articulated in United States v. Moore,
931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991), which were reiterated in
Ubakanma. 215 F.3d at 424. The factors include, whether:
(1) the defendant has offered credible evidence that his plea
was not knowing or not voluntary; (2) the defendant has credibly
asserted his legal innocence; (3) there has been a delay between
the entering of the plea and the filing of the motion; (4) the
defendant has had close assistance of competent counsel; (5) the
withdrawal will cause prejudice to the government; and (6) the
2
withdrawal will inconvenience the court and waste judicial
resources.
Moore, 931 F.2d at 248.
Although all the factors in Moore must be given
appropriate weight, the key in determining whether a motion to
withdraw should be granted is whether the plea hearing was
properly conducted under Rule 11. United States v. Puckett,
61
F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995). 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.
Id.
We have reviewed the record and determine that
Horton’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Further, he has
not credibly asserted his legal innocence. We have considered
the Moore factors and conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Horton’s motion to withdraw his
guilty plea.
We therefore affirm the judgment. 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