US v. Michael Tucker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cr-00028-MSD-LRL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999487846].. [14-4120]

Appeal: 14-4120

Doc: 39

Filed: 12/05/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4120

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL JAY TUCKER,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:12-cr-00028-MSD-LRL-1)

Submitted:

September 30, 2014

Decided:

December 5, 2014

Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Bodner, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente,
United States Attorney, Catherine S. Ahn, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4120

Doc: 39

Filed: 12/05/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael Jay Tucker pled guilty to two counts of brandishing
a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. On appeal, Tucker contends that
the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion
to withdraw his guilty plea, by denying his counsel’s motion to
withdraw, and by denying his motion for re-assessment of his
sanity at the time he committed the offense. * Having carefully
reviewed the record, the parties’ briefs, and the challenged
rulings, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion
in

denying

the

requested

relief.

Accordingly,

we

affirm

the

judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
us

and

are

further

adequately
argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

*

We review each of these rulings for abuse of discretion,
considering (among other things) whether the district court
analyzed the appropriate factors that guide the exercise of its
discretion. See United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 383-84
(4th Cir. 2012) (withdrawal of guilty plea); United States v.
Blackledge, 751 F.3d 188, 193-94 (4th Cir. 2014) (withdrawal of
counsel); United States v. Moussaoui, 591 F.3d 263, 291 (4th
Cir. 2010) (competency assessment).

2