United States v. Rogers

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4314
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARIO REGINALD ROGERS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00120-JAB)
Submitted: November 14, 2007 Decided: December 7, 2007
Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Brian M. Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills
Wagoner, United States Attorney, David P. Folmar, Jr., Assistant
United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mario Reginald Rogers pled guilty pursuant to a plea
agreement to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine base
(crack), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000), and one count of
being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18
U.S.C.A. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). Three
months after he pled guilty and right after he received the
presentence investigation report and just before sentencing, Rogers
filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the basis that he was
not guilty of the offenses and believed he was pressured into
pleading guilty. The district court denied the motion. The court
continued the sentencing hearing which allowed Rogers time to file
another motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Rogers again asserted
his innocence. The court denied the motion. On appeal, Rogers
challenges the district court’s denial of his two motions. Finding
no error, we affirm.
We review the district court’s denial of a motion to
withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). A defendant does not
have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea. United States v.
Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). Rather the defendant
bears the burden of demonstrating that a “fair and just reason”
supports his request to withdraw his plea. Id. Factors considered
in determining whether a defendant has shown a fair and just reason
- 2 -
for withdrawing a guilty plea include: (1) whether the defendant
has offered credible evidence that the plea was not knowing or
voluntary; (2) whether the defendant credibly asserted his legal
innocence; (3) whether there has been a delay between the entry of
the plea and the filing of the motion; (4) whether the defendant
had close assistance of competent counsel; (5) whether withdrawal
will cause prejudice to the government; and (6) whether it will
inconvenience the court and waste judicial resources. Id.Although all the factors in Moore must be given appropriate weight,
the central question is whether the Rule 11 colloquy was properly
conducted. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir.
1995). We closely scrutinize the Rule 11 colloquy and attach a
strong presumption that the plea is final and binding if the Rule
11 proceeding is adequate. United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389,
1394 (4th Cir. 1992).
We find the Rule 11 proceeding was adequate and Rogers’
plea was knowing and voluntary. We further find Rogers failed to
credibly assert his legal innocence. In addition, we agree with
the district court that if Rogers were allowed to withdraw his
plea, it would result in prejudice to the Government and a
significant waste of judicial resources.
Accordingly, we affirm Rogers’ convictions and sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
- 3 -
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -