US v. Ajamu Osborne
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion dispositions in opinion--denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999638345-2], denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999665597-2]; denying Motion to reconsider [999646129-2]; denying Motion for "review and mandamus of the clerk agency final act order" [999676166-2], denying Motion for oral argument [999696822-2]. Originating case number: 2:12-cr-00155-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. . [15-4098]
Pg: 1 of 5
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
AJAMU SAWANDI OSBORNE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:12-cr-00155-1)
October 27, 2015
December 7, 2015
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS
Virginia, for Appellant.
Attorney, Monica D. Coleman,
Charleston, West Virginia, for
LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West
Booth Goodwin II, United States
Assistant United States Attorney,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 5
Ajamu Sawandi Osborne pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written
appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion
refusing to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility
sentencing, a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea if he “can
defendant an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea, however.
United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991).
burden of showing a fair and just reason for withdrawal of the
plea rests with the defendant.
A fair and just reason
“essentially challenges” the fairness of the Rule 11 proceeding.
United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995).
The district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty
plea is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000).
United States v.
Pg: 3 of 5
This court has developed a nonexclusive list of factors for
the district court to consider in deciding if the defendant has
met his burden:
evidence that his plea was not knowing or not
voluntary, (2) whether the defendant has credibly
asserted his legal innocence, (3) whether there has
been a delay between the entering of the plea and the
filing of the motion, (4) whether defendant has had
close assistance of competent counsel, (5) whether
withdrawal will cause prejudice to the government, and
(6) whether it will inconvenience the court and waste
Moore, 931 F.2d at 248.
“The most important consideration in resolving a motion to
leaves a defendant with a very limited basis upon which to have
his plea withdrawn.”
United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 414
criminal justice system can rely, it must be recognized to raise
United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en
banc). Here, we find that the district court fully complied with
Rule 11 in conducting Osborne’s guilty plea colloquy.
Osborne claimed in his motion to withdraw that his plea was
Pg: 4 of 5
After a lengthy hearing, during which the district
court heard testimony from Charleston Metro Drug Unit detectives
department, the district court found that, applying the Moore
factors, Osborne failed to establish a fair and just reason to
allow him to withdraw his guilty plea.
We find no abuse of
discretion in the district court’s decision.
The determination of whether a defendant is deserving of an
acceptance of responsibility adjustment is a factual issue and
thus reviewed for clear error.
United States v. Dugger, 485
F.3d 236, 239 (4th Cir. 2007).
“The sentencing judge is in a
Elliott v. United States, 332 F.3d 753, 761 (4th Cir. 2003)
reverse the district court’s finding only when “left with the
definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Dugger, 485 F.3d at 239 (internal quotation marks omitted).
provides for a two-level reduction for a defendant who “‘clearly
Pg: 5 of 5
United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 678 (4th Cir. 2011)
States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir. 1996).
denial of relevant conduct is inconsistent with acceptance of
Elliott, 332 F.3d at 761 (internal quotation
marks omitted); see USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1.
We find that the
Osborne’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was inconsistent
with acceptance of responsibility.
For the reasons given, we affirm Osborne’s conviction and
deferring a ruling on that motion , as well as his motion “for
review and mandamus of the clerk agency final act order.”
also deny Osborne’s motion for oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
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?