US v. Willie Barnes

Filing 920091223

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4363 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIE EDWARD BARNES, a/k/a Big Will, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00064-JPB-DJJ-1) Submitted: December 2, 2009 Decided: December 23, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen D. Herndon, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Willie Barnes pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) (2006). to 327 months' imprisonment. The district court sentenced Barnes Barnes now appeals, claiming that the district court erred in denying his motions to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm. Barnes not was represented to by counsel, Barnes' pro the se Because district court was required consider letter filed on February 9, 2009, as a motion to withdraw his plea. n.17 See United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, 206 (3rd Cir. 2006) (holding district court is within its authority to disregard pro se motions from a counseled party). Further, even if the letter had been construed as a motion to withdraw Barnes' guilty plea, such a motion lacked merit. plea." "There is no absolute right to withdrawal of a guilty United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991)). The defendant bears the burden of showing a "fair Fed. R. and just reason" for the withdrawal of his guilty plea. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). "[A] properly conducted Rule 11 guilty plea colloquy leaves a defendant with a very limited basis upon which to have his plea withdrawn." 2 United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 414 (4th Cir. 2003). have reviewed the record on With these standards in mind, we appeal and conclude that Barnes failed to present a fair and just reason that his guilty plea should be withdrawn. Barnes also alleges that the district court abused its discretion in denying his pro se, post-sentencing motion to withdraw his plea. After a defendant has been sentenced, the district court has no authority to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. 499 F.3d 315, the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e); United States v. Battle, 319 (4th Cir. of the 2007). plea The after only vehicles are to by challenge validity sentencing direct appeal or in a collateral attack. district motion. court did not abuse its Id. Accordingly, the in denying this discretion We therefore affirm the district court's judgment. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?