United States v. White ( 2010 )

Vacated by Supreme Court, October 4, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4257
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL LEWIS WHITE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W.
Boyle, District Judge. (5:08-cr-00224-BO-1)
Submitted: January 5, 2010 Decided: January 25, 2010
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Stephen C. Gordon,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant. George E. B. Holding, United States Attorney, Anne M.
Hayes, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Lewis White pleaded guilty to possession of a
firearm after having previously been convicted of a crime
punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). White subsequently
moved to withdraw his guilty plea and the district court denied
his motion. The court sentenced White to 120 months of
imprisonment and White now appeals. Finding no error, we
affirm.
On appeal, White argues that the district court erred
in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We review 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.White argues that he was legally innocent of violating
§ 922(g)(1) because his prior convictions for possession with
intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to
distribute marijuana, possession of cocaine, and possession of
stolen property were not punishable by a term of imprisonment
exceeding one year. While White’s argument is concededly
foreclosed by United States v. Harp, 406 F.3d 242, 246-47 (4th
Cir. 2005), he argues that the subsequent decisions in United
2
States v. Rodriguez, 553 U.S. 337 (2008), and United States v.
Pruitt, 545 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2008), have undermined this
court’s holding in Harp. We have thoroughly reviewed the record
and the relevant legal authorities and conclude that our holding
in Harp is consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in
Rodriguez. Further, to the extent Pruitt may be inconsistent
with Harp, decisions by our sister circuits are simply not
binding upon this court.
We therefore 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 the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3