United States v. David Phillips , 587 F. App'x 79 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-4459
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    DAVID NEIL PHILLIPS, a/k/a Neil Phillips,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (5:12-cr-00236-F-1)
    Submitted:   November 13, 2014            Decided:   December 15, 2014
    Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Steven Kiersh, LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN KIERSH, Washington, D.C.,
    for Appellant.     Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney,
    Jennifer P. May-Parker, Kristine L. Fritz, Assistant United
    States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    David Neil Phillips pleaded guilty to conspiracy to
    manufacture, distribute, dispense, and possess with intent to
    distribute       500     grams    or    more      of   a        mixture       and    substance
    containing       a    detectable       amount     of     methamphetamine             and     five
    kilograms or more of cocaine, 
    21 U.S.C. §§ 841
    (a)(1), (b)(1)(A)
    and 846 (2012); and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a
    drug    trafficking       crime,       
    18 U.S.C. § 924
    (c)        (2012).          After
    denying    Phillips’s         motion    to     withdraw         his     guilty      plea,     the
    district court sentenced him to life imprisonment on the drug
    conspiracy,      plus     a     sixty-month       consecutive           sentence      for     the
    firearm    conviction.           Phillips       now    appeals,         arguing      that     the
    district    court       erred    in    denying     his     motion        to    withdraw       his
    guilty plea.         We affirm.
    We review a district court’s denial of a motion to
    withdraw     a       guilty   plea     for     abuse       of    discretion.               United
    States v.    Nicholson,          
    676 F.3d 376
    ,    383       (4th     Cir.      2012).      A
    defendant seeking to withdraw his guilty plea bears the burden
    of “show[ing] a fair and just reason” for withdrawing his guilty
    plea.    Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); Nicholson, 
    676 F.3d at 383
    .
    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 otherwise
    involuntary; (2) whether the defendant has credibly
    2
    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
    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).
    While all of these factors should be considered, the key factor
    is    whether   the     Rule    11    hearing     was        properly     conducted.
    Nicholson, 
    676 F.3d at 384
    .
    We have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of
    discretion in the district court’s denial of Phillips’s motion.
    Phillips has failed to establish that his guilty plea was not
    knowing and voluntary.         During the Rule 11 hearing, the district
    court twice informed Phillips that these convictions carried a
    potential maximum penalty of two life sentences, which Phillips
    indicated that he understood.           The written plea agreement signed
    by Phillips similarly stated in three places that the maximum
    penalty was life imprisonment for each charge.
    Furthermore,        the     remaining        factors       support      the
    district court’s decision.           Phillips has offered no support for
    his   assertions      that   counsel’s       failure    to    file    a   motion    to
    suppress   deprived      him   of    “close     assistance       of     counsel”   in
    connection with his plea.            Nor has he provided any evidence to
    support his claim of legal innocence.              Phillips also waited more
    than six months and until the morning of his sentencing hearing
    3
    to seek withdrawal of his plea, at considerable inconvenience to
    the government and the district court.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
    We   dispense   with   oral   argument   because   the   facts   and   legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
    court and argument will not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-4459

Citation Numbers: 587 F. App'x 79

Judges: Niemeyer, Harris, Davis

Filed Date: 12/15/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024