United States v. Craig Anderson , 624 F. App'x 106 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-4033
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff – Appellee,
    v.
    CRAIG OKEIDO ANDERSON, a/k/a Snap, a/k/a Sir Chill, a/k/a
    King Hundredgrand, a/k/a Yung Royalty,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.     William D. Quarles, Jr., District
    Judge. (1:14-cr-00042-WDQ-1)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2015            Decided:   December 14, 2015
    Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Mirriam Z. Seddiq, SEDDIQ LAW FIRM, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
    Appellant.   Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Zachary
    A. Myers, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Craig Okeido Anderson appeals his conviction after pleading
    guilty    to    possession        of   a    firearm      by    a     convicted   felon.
    Anderson claims that the district court erred by denying his
    motion to withdraw his plea and by denying him the right to
    counsel at the hearing on that motion.                        Finding no reversible
    error, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
    We review the 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 has no absolute right to
    withdraw a guilty plea, and the district court has discretion to
    decide whether a fair and just reason exists upon which to grant
    a     withdrawal.”         
    Id. at 383-84
         (internal        quotation    marks
    omitted); see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).                        “The most important
    consideration in resolving a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is
    an evaluation of the Rule 11 colloquy at which the guilty plea
    was accepted.”       Nicholson, 
    676 F.3d at 384
     (internal quotation
    marks omitted) (setting forth factors courts consider).                          “Thus,
    when a district court considers the plea withdrawal motion, the
    inquiry is ordinarily confined to whether the underlying plea
    was    both    counseled    and    voluntary.”           
    Id.
       (internal      quotation
    marks omitted).
    Anderson    contends       that     his    plea   colloquy       was   defective
    because, after he stated under oath that he was a U.S. citizen,
    2
    the district court did not warn him of the potential immigration
    consequences       of    pleading    guilty.         See     Fed.     R.    Crim.    P.
    11(b)(1)(O).       Upon review of the record, we conclude that any
    such error is harmless because Anderson had actual notice of
    these    possible       immigration       consequences       because       they     were
    included    in    the    plea   agreement.         We     further    conclude       that
    Anderson    entered      his    guilty     plea    voluntarily       and    that     the
    district court was within its discretion to deny his motion to
    withdraw it.       Finally, we reject Anderson’s claim that, at the
    plea-withdrawal hearing, he suffered a complete deprivation of
    his right to counsel when counsel informed the district court
    that he ethically could not present Anderson’s arguments.                            To
    the     extent    Anderson      wishes     to     argue     that     his    counsel’s
    performance was ineffective, that claim should be raised, if at
    all, in a 
    28 U.S.C. § 2255
     (2012) motion.                   See United States v.
    Baptiste,    
    596 F.3d 214
    ,     216   n.1     (4th    Cir.   2010)     (providing
    standard for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims raised on
    direct 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
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-4033

Citation Numbers: 624 F. App'x 106

Judges: Agee, Harris, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/14/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024