US v. Robert Allen Miller
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:14-cr-00305-WO-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999731572].. [15-4076]
Appeal: 15-4076
Doc: 31
Filed: 01/07/2016
Pg: 1 of 4
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4076
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT ALLEN MILLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:14-cr-00305-WO-1)
Submitted:
October 29, 2015
Decided:
January 7, 2016
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eugene E. Lester, III, SHARPLESS & STAVOLA, PA, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States
Attorney, Kyle D. Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4076
Doc: 31
Filed: 01/07/2016
Pg: 2 of 4
PER CURIAM:
Robert Allen Miller pled guilty to carrying and using, by
brandishing, a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012), and was sentenced to the
statutory
mandatory
imprisonment.
minimum
sentence
of
seven
years’
On appeal, Miller asserts that the district court
erred when it failed to authorize the withdrawal of his guilty
plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). *
We affirm.
We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d
376, 383 (4th Cir. 2012).
However, in the instant case, Miller
never moved to withdraw his guilty plea and never challenged the
district
court’s
sentencing
interpretation
hearing
as
a
of
motion
his
to
statements
substitute
at
the
counsel.
Accordingly, we review the issue for plain error only.
See
United States v. Aplicano-Oyuela, 792 F.3d 416, 422 (4th Cir.
2015).
To
satisfy
plain
error
*
review,
the
defendant
must
To the extent that Miller also seeks to challenge the
district court’s denial of his motion to substitute counsel, we
find that he failed to adequately raise the issue for appellate
review.
See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A) (requiring argument
section of brief to contain “appellant’s contentions and the
reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of
the record on which the appellant relies”).
See also Eriline
Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 648, 653 n.7 (4th Cir. 2006)
(finding single, conclusory sentence in brief “insufficient to
raise on appeal any merits-based challenge to the district
court’s ruling”).
2
Appeal: 15-4076
Doc: 31
Filed: 01/07/2016
establish that:
and
(3)
the
Pg: 3 of 4
(1) there is an error; (2) the error is plain;
error
affects
his
substantial
rights.
Id.
Moreover, even if all three of these elements are satisfied, we
will not act to cure the error unless it “seriously affects the
fairness,
integrity
proceedings.”
Id.
or
public
reputation
of
judicial
(internal quotation marks omitted).
A defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a
guilty plea.
United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 413 (4th
Cir. 2003); United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.
1991).
After
the
court
accepts
a
guilty
plea,
but
before
sentencing, a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea if he “can
show
a
fair
and
just
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d).
reason
for
requesting
the
withdrawal.”
The burden of “showing a fair and just
reason” for withdrawal of the plea rests with the defendant.
United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000).
We have developed a nonexclusive list of issues to consider in
determining whether a defendant has met his burden, Moore, 931
F.2d at 248, the most important of which is “an evaluation of
the Rule 11 colloquy,” Bowman, 348 F.3d at 414.
We closely
scrutinize the Rule 11 colloquy and, if the Rule 11 proceeding
was properly conducted, “a strong presumption that the plea is
final
and
(internal
binding”
quotation
attaches.
marks
Nicholson,
omitted).
“[A]
676
F.3d
properly
at
384
conducted
Rule 11 . . . colloquy leaves a defendant with a very limited
3
Appeal: 15-4076
Doc: 31
Filed: 01/07/2016
Pg: 4 of 4
basis upon which to have his plea withdrawn.”
Bowman, 348 F.3d
at 414.
With
transcript
these
of
standards
the
in
properly
mind,
and
conducted
having
Rule
11
reviewed
hearing,
conclude that Miller has failed to establish plain error.
accordingly affirm.
facts
and
materials
legal
before
the
we
We
We dispense with oral argument because the
arguments
this
court
are
and
adequately
argument
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4
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?