United States v. Michael Tucker , 586 F. App'x 141 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-4120
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    MICHAEL JAY TUCKER,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
    Judge. (4:12-cr-00028-MSD-LRL-1)
    Submitted:   September 30, 2014           Decided:   December 5, 2014
    Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mark Bodner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente,
    United States Attorney, Catherine S. Ahn, Special Assistant
    United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Jay Tucker pled guilty to two counts of brandishing
    a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
    § 924(c)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On appeal, Tucker contends that
    the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion
    to withdraw his guilty plea, by denying his counsel’s motion to
    withdraw, and by denying his motion for re-assessment of his
    sanity at the time he committed the offense. * Having carefully
    reviewed the record, the parties’ briefs, and the challenged
    rulings, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion
    in   denying    the    requested   relief.   Accordingly,      we    affirm   the
    judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal     contentions    are    adequately   presented    in   the    materials
    before    us   and    further   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    *
    We review each of these rulings for abuse of discretion,
    considering (among other things) whether the district court
    analyzed the appropriate factors that guide the exercise of its
    discretion. See United States v. Nicholson, 
    676 F.3d 376
    , 383-84
    (4th Cir. 2012) (withdrawal of guilty plea); United States v.
    Blackledge, 
    751 F.3d 188
    , 193-94 (4th Cir. 2014) (withdrawal of
    counsel); United States v. Moussaoui, 
    591 F.3d 263
    , 291 (4th
    Cir. 2010) (competency assessment).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-4120

Citation Numbers: 586 F. App'x 141

Judges: Wilkinson, Shedd, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/5/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024