US v. Matthew Musante

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cr-00193-RJC-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999770764].. [15-4241, 15-4247]

Appeal: 15-4241

Doc: 54

Filed: 03/09/2016

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4241

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW J. MUSANTE,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-4247

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MATTHEW J. MUSANTE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00193-RJC-1; 3:12-cr-00386-RJC-4)

Submitted:

February 29, 2016

Decided:

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

March 9, 2016

Appeal: 15-4241

Doc: 54

Filed: 03/09/2016

Pg: 2 of 5

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., RUDOLF WIDENHOUSE & FIALKO, Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Jill Westmoreland Rose,
United States Attorney, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 15-4241

Doc: 54

Filed: 03/09/2016

Pg: 3 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Matthew J. Musante was charged with conspiracy to commit
insider trading, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (2012), and
transactional money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957
(2012).

(J.A.

subsequently

30).

moved

Musante

to

entered

withdraw

his

a

guilty

plea,

plea,

arguing

but

that

a

recently-decided Second Circuit case, United States v. Newman,
773

F.3d

438

(2d

Cir.

2014),

cert.

denied,

136

S.

Ct.

242

(2015), suggested a defense to the conspiracy charge of which he
had not been informed.

The district court denied his motion.

We affirm.
We review for an abuse of discretion the denial of a motion
to withdraw a guilty plea.

United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d

376, 383 (4th Cir. 2012).

To withdraw a guilty plea before

sentencing, a defendant must “show a fair and just reason for
requesting the withdrawal.”
defendant

bears

the

should be granted.”

burden

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).
of

demonstrating

that

“The

withdrawal

United States v. Thompson-Riviere, 561 F.3d

345, 348 (4th Cir. 2009) (brackets and internal quotation marks
omitted).
complied

Where,
with

the

as

here,

Rule

11

the

district

requirements,

court
the

substantially

defendant

must

overcome a strong presumption that his guilty plea is final and
binding.

United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir.

1992) (en banc).
3

Appeal: 15-4241

Doc: 54

In

Filed: 03/09/2016

deciding

a

motion

Pg: 4 of 5

to

withdraw

a

guilty

plea,

the

district court must consider the following six factors:
(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 the defendant has
had close assistance of competent counsel; (5) whether
withdrawal will cause prejudice to the government; and
(6) whether [withdrawal] will inconvenience the court
and waste judicial resources.
United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245 (4th Cir. 1991).

The first

factor is perhaps the most important, as “the fairness of the
Rule 11 proceeding is the key factor in the review of the denial
of

a

motion

to

withdraw

a

guilty

plea.”

United

Wilson, 81 F.3d 1300, 1306 (4th Cir. 1996).

States

v.

It is this factor

on which Musante places the balance of his argument. *
Musante argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his
plea because his guilty plea to the charge of conspiracy to
commit insider trading was not knowing and voluntary, as he was
not informed of a possible defense based on his ignorance of any
benefit

to

the

disclosed.
concluding,

The
in

“insider”
district

essence,

that

from
court
the

*

the

information

rejected
factual

this

basis

for

improperly
argument,
the

plea

Musante also argues that the district court erred in
assessing the third and fifth Moore factors, but these factors,
even if decided in Musante’s favor, would not affect our
decision.

4

Appeal: 15-4241

Doc: 54

Filed: 03/09/2016

Pg: 5 of 5

would not support the defense recognized in Newman.

Our review

of the record convinces us that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in so concluding.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s ruling denying
the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.

We 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

5