US v. James Link

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00076-TSE-2 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999603688].. [14-4742]

Appeal: 14-4742

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/17/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4742

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES THOMAS LINK,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00076-TSE-2)

Submitted:

May 28, 2015

Decided:

June 17, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Jennifer A. Clarke, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-4742

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/17/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James Thomas Link pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to two counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime
of

violence,

(2012).
with

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§

924(c)(1)(A)(ii)

Link subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his plea

respect

to

one

of

these

counts.

In

his

motion,

Link

alleged that his plea was involuntary because it was premised on
his mistaken belief, based on a conversation with the prosecutor
and defense counsel, that a codefendant would testify against
him if he proceeded to trial.

Following an evidentiary hearing,

the district court denied Link’s motion.

On appeal, Link argues

that the district court erred in denying his motion.

Finding no

error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw
a

guilty

Nicholson,

plea

for

abuse

676

F.3d

376,

of

discretion.

383-84

(4th

Cir.

United
2012).

States
After

v.
a

district court accepts a guilty plea but before sentencing, a
defendant may withdraw his guilty plea if he “can show a fair
and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.”
P. 11(d).

Fed. R. Crim.

A defendant has “no absolute right to withdraw a

guilty plea,” and he “has the burden of showing a fair and just
reason for withdrawal.”

United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d

421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000).

2

Appeal: 14-4742

Doc: 23

Filed: 06/17/2015

Although
considered

we

in

have

Pg: 3 of 3

identified

assessing

whether

several

the

factors

defendant

has

to

be

met

his

burden, United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.
1991), a central factor is the knowing and voluntary nature of
the guilty plea.

Nicholson, 676 F.3d at 384.

“[A] properly

conducted Rule 11 guilty plea colloquy leaves a defendant with a
very

limited

withdrawn.”

basis
Nicholson,

upon
676

which
F.3d

at

to
384

have

his

(internal

plea

quotation

marks omitted).
With

these

standards

in

mind,

and

having

reviewed

the

transcripts of the Rule 11 hearing and the hearing on the motion
to withdraw, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in finding that Link failed to show a fair and
just reason to withdraw his plea.
district

court’s

judgment.

We

Accordingly, we affirm the
dispense

with

oral

argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3