United States v. Perry Sellom Dei ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4553
PERRY SELLOM DEI,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.
Jerome B. Friedman, District Judge.
(CR-98-170)
Submitted: March 31, 2000
Decided: April 18, 2000
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Sterling H. Weaver, Sr., WEAVER LAW OFFICES, Portsmouth,
Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney,
James Ashford Metcalfe, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Perry Sellom Dei appeals the district court's denial of his motion
to withdraw his guilty plea. A defendant has no absolute right to with-
draw a plea of guilty. See United States v. Ewing, 957 F.2d 115, 118
(4th Cir. 1992). This court reviews a denial of a motion to withdraw
a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Wilson,
81 F.3d 1300, 1305 (4th Cir. 1996). Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e),
when a defendant moves to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing, the
court may permit withdrawal if the defendant shows"any fair and just
reason." In determining whether a defendant has demonstrated such
a reason, courts consider six factors:
(1) whether the defendant has offered credible evidence
that his plea was not knowing or not voluntary;
(2) whether defendant has credibly asserted his legal inno-
cence;
(3) whether there has been a delay between the entering of
the plea and the filing of the motion;
(4) whether the defendant has had close assistance of com-
petent counsel;
(5) whether withdrawal will cause prejudice to the govern-
ment; and
(6) whether it will inconvenience the court and waste judi-
cial resources.
Wilson, 81 F.3d at 1306 (citing United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245(4th Cir. 1991)).
Our review of the record in light of each of these factors leads us
to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deny-
ing Dei's motion. Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral
2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately pres-
ented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3