US v. Gregory Tropea

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:13-cr-00075-RGD-DEM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999449442].. [14-4234]

Appeal: 14-4234

Doc: 33

Filed: 10/06/2014

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4234

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
GREGORY LAWRENCE TROPEA,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:13-cr-00075-RGD-DEM-1)

Submitted:

September 23, 2014

Decided:

October 6, 2014

Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Ellenson, LAW OFFICE OF JAMES STEPHEN ELLENSON, Newport
News, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4234

Doc: 33

Filed: 10/06/2014

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
In accordance with a written plea agreement, Gregory
Tropea

pled

guilty

to

three

counts

of

receipt

of

child

pornography, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2) (2012), and one count of
making

a

false

§ 1001

statement

(2012).

He

was

to

a

probation

sentenced

to

officer,

336

months

18
in

U.S.C.
prison.

Tropea now appeals, claiming that the district court erroneously
denied

his

motion

to

withdraw

his

guilty

plea.

unaware

Finding

that,

no

error, we affirm.
Tropea

contends

he

was

by

pleading

guilty, he was waiving his right to appeal the district court’s
denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search
of

a

motel

room.

The

record,

which

establishes

that

the

district court fully complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, is to
the contrary.

Tropea acknowledged at his Rule 11 hearing that

he had read the plea agreement, understood it, and had reviewed
the

agreement

with

his

attorney.

In

the

agreement,

Tropea

waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence; there
was no reservation of the right to appeal the ruling on the
suppression motion.
hearing

whether

suppression

Further, the court inquired at the Rule 11

Tropea

ruling.

had

Both

reserved
defense

his

right

counsel

and

United States Attorney stated that he had not.
opportunity to disagree, but he said nothing.
2

to
the

appeal

the

Assistant

Tropea had the

Appeal: 14-4234

Doc: 33

“A

Filed: 10/06/2014

defendant

guilty plea.”

has

Pg: 3 of 4

no

absolute

right

to

withdraw

a

United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 383-84

(4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Instead,

the defendant bears the burden of “show[ing] a fair and just
reason” for withdrawal.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); United

State v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000).

We review

for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion to
withdraw a guilty plea.

Nicholson, 676 F.3d at 383.

Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we hold that
the district court did not abuse its discretion.
court

properly

conducted

Tropea’s

Rule

11

First, the

proceeding.

See

United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 414 (4th Cir. 2003) (“a
properly conducted Rule 11 . . . colloquy leaves a defendant
with

a

very

withdrawn”).

limited

basis

upon

which

to

have

his

plea

Additionally, the district court correctly applied

the factors set forth in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245,
248

(4th

Cir.

1991).

Notably,

Tropea

offered

no

credible

evidence that his plea was unknowing or involuntary, he did not
assert his legal innocence, and the district court found that
allowing withdrawal of the plea would have both inconvenienced
the court and the Government and wasted judicial resources.
We accordingly affirm.

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented

3

Appeal: 14-4234

Doc: 33

Filed: 10/06/2014

Pg: 4 of 4

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4