United States v. Brown

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 01-4684

CARLOS KEITH BROWN,

Defendant-Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.

David A. Faber, District Judge.

(CR-01-5)

Submitted: January 14, 2002

Decided: February 7, 2002

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL

Mary Lou Newberger, Acting Federal Public Defender, Brian J.

Kornbrath, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston, West Vir-

ginia, for Appellant. Kasey Warner, United States Attorney, John L.

File, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for

Appellee.

2 UNITED STATES v. BROWN

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Carlos Keith Brown pled guilty to possessing a firearm after having

been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in viola-

tion of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(9), 924(a)(2) (West 2000). He subse-

quently moved to withdraw his guilty plea upon the basis that his plea

was not knowing and voluntary and he had a credible legal defense

supporting his claim of innocence. After an evidentiary hearing, the

district court denied the motion. We affirm.

We review the district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a

guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d

245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure allows a plea to be withdrawn for a "fair and just reason."

An appropriately conducted Rule 11 proceeding raises a strong pre-

sumption that the plea is final and binding. United States v. Puckett,

61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995). Brown bears the burden of show-

ing a fair and just reason to grant his motion. United States v. Uba-

kanma, 215 F.3d 421, 423 (4th Cir. 2000).

We find that Brown failed to show a fair and just reason to with-

draw his guilty plea. The Rule 11 proceeding was properly conducted

and Brown’s guilty plea knowing and voluntary. We further find

Brown’s claim of legal innocence fails. In addition, Brown does not

challenge the competency of his counsel. Because these factors weigh

towards denying Brown his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, we

find the court did not abuse its discretion. See United States v. Sparks,

67 F.3d 1145, 1154 (4th Cir. 1995).

Accordingly, we affirm the conviction and sentence. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are ade-

quately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED