US v. Ajamu Osborne
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999713146]. [15-4098]
Appeal: 15-4098
Doc: 60
Filed: 12/07/2015
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4098
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
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)
Submitted:
October 27, 2015
Decided:
December 7, 2015
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Troy N. Giatras, THE GIATRAS
Virginia, for Appellant.
R.
Attorney, Monica D. Coleman,
Charleston, West Virginia, for
LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West
Booth Goodwin II, United States
Assistant United States Attorney,
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4098
Doc: 60
Filed: 12/07/2015
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Ajamu Sawandi Osborne pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written
plea
agreement,
distribute
(2012),
a
and
to
one
quantity
was
count
of
sentenced
of
possession
Oxycodone,
to
70
21
with
U.S.C.
months’
intent
to
§ 841(a)(1)
imprisonment.
He
appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion
in
denying
his
motion
to
withdraw
his
guilty
plea
and
in
refusing to grant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility
at sentencing.
We affirm.
I.
After
the
court
accepts
a
guilty
plea,
but
before
sentencing, a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea if he “can
show
a
Fed.
R.
fair
and
Crim.
P.
just
reason
for
11(d)(2)(B).
requesting
The
rule
the
does
withdrawal.”
not
afford
a
defendant an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea, however.
United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991).
The
burden of showing a fair and just reason for withdrawal of the
plea rests with the defendant.
Id.
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).
2
United States v.
Appeal: 15-4098
Doc: 60
Filed: 12/07/2015
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:
(1)
whether
the
defendant
has
offered
credible
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
judicial resources.
Moore, 931 F.2d at 248.
“The most important consideration in resolving a motion to
withdraw
a
guilty
colloquy [and]
a
plea
is
properly
an
evaluation
conducted
Rule
of
11
.
the
Rule
.
colloquy
.
11
leaves a defendant with a very limited basis upon which to have
his plea withdrawn.”
United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 414
(4th
“If
Cir.
proceeding
2003).
is
to
serve
an
a
appropriately
meaningful
conducted
function,
on
Rule
which
11
the
criminal justice system can rely, it must be recognized to raise
a
strong
presumption
that
the
plea
is
final
and
binding.”
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
not
knowing
or
voluntary
because
3
the
police
mishandled
the
Appeal: 15-4098
Doc: 60
evidence.
Filed: 12/07/2015
Pg: 4 of 5
After a lengthy hearing, during which the district
court heard testimony from Charleston Metro Drug Unit detectives
regarding
the
chain
of
custody
procedures
employed
by
their
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.
II.
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
unique
position
responsibility,
sentencing
judge
to
and
evaluate
thus
is
.
a
.
entitled
defendant’s
.
to
the
great
acceptance
determination
deference
on
of
of
the
review.”
Elliott v. United States, 332 F.3d 753, 761 (4th Cir. 2003)
(internal
quotations
and
brackets
omitted).
This
court
may
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).
Section
3E1.1
of
the
U.S.
Sentencing
Guidelines
Manual
provides for a two-level reduction for a defendant who “‘clearly
demonstrates
acceptance
of
responsibility
4
for
his
offense.’”
Appeal: 15-4098
Doc: 60
Filed: 12/07/2015
Pg: 5 of 5
United States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 678 (4th Cir. 2011)
(quoting
USSG
§ 3E1.1(a)).
defendant
must
establish
“that
has
clearly
he
personal
by
To
a
merit
for
reduction,
preponderance
recognized
responsibility
this
his
the
evidence
affirmatively
accepted
and
criminal
of
the
conduct.”
United
States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1005 (4th Cir. 1996).
“[A]
denial of relevant conduct is inconsistent with acceptance of
responsibility.”
Elliott, 332 F.3d at 761 (internal quotation
marks omitted); see USSG § 3E1.1 cmt. n.1.
district
court
did
not
clearly
err
We find that the
when
it
concluded
that
Osborne’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was inconsistent
with acceptance of responsibility.
III.
For the reasons given, we affirm Osborne’s conviction and
sentence.
supplemental
We
deny
brief
Osborne’s
and
for
motions
to
file
reconsideration
of
a
pro
the
se
order
deferring a ruling on that motion , as well as his motion “for
review and mandamus of the clerk agency final act order.”
We
also deny Osborne’s motion for 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
5
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?