US v. Scott

Filing 920071022

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-4100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TODD SCOTT, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00157-RLW)

Submitted:

August 31, 2007

Decided:

October 22, 2007

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

I. Scott Pickus, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Charles P. Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Todd Scott appeals his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000).

Scott alleges the

district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. A defendant who seeks to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing must demonstrate a "fair and just reason" for withdrawal of the plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). A "fair and just"

reason is one that essentially "challenges the fairness of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 proceeding" or "challenges the fulfillment of a promise or condition emanating from the proceeding." States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992). United A court

should 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. Id. We review the district court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Wilson, 81 F.3d 1300, 1305 (4th Cir. 1996). After

reviewing the record, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by finding no fair and just reason for the

withdrawal of Scott's guilty plea.

- 2 -

Accordingly, we affirm Scott's conviction and sentence. 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 -