# United States v. Raymond Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · October 18, 2011 · 450 F. App'x 297

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/615545

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Raymond Emmet BROWN, Defendant—Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 18, 2011
- **Citations:** 450 F. App'x 297
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Gregory, Davis, Keith
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/615545

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4740

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND EMMET BROWN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:08-cr-00015-F-1)

Submitted: September 13, 2011 Decided: October 18, 2011

Before GREGORY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and Damon J. KEITH,
Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

R. Clarke Speaks, SPEAKS LAW FIRM, PC, Wilmington, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States
Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant
United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Raymond Emmet Brown pleaded guilty to possession with

intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a) (2006), and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a

drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

(2006). The district court sentenced Brown to life imprisonment

plus sixty years, to be served consecutively. His appellate

attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386

U.S. 738 (1967), arguing that the district court erred in

denying Brown’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Brown has

filed a pro se brief and two supplements to his brief raising

additional issues. Finding no error, we affirm.

This Court reviews a district court’s denial of a

motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Dyess, 478 F.3d 224, 237 (4th Cir. 2007)

(citation omitted). A defendant seeking to withdraw his guilty

plea bears the burden of demonstrating that withdrawal should be

granted. Id. (citation omitted). In deciding whether to permit

a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea, a district court should

consider:

(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 entry of the plea and filing of
the motion; (4) whether the defendant has had close
assistance of counsel; (5) whether withdrawal will

2
cause prejudice to the government; and (6) whether
withdrawal will inconvenience the court and waste
judicial resources.

United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000)

(citation omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying Brown’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

In addition to the issue raised by counsel, we have

considered the issues Brown raised in his pro se brief and

supplements to that brief, and we conclude they lack merit.

Further, we have examined the entire record in accordance with

the requirements of Anders and have found no meritorious issues

for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district

court.

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 in the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/615545. Public record. Not legal advice.