US v. Wossen Assaye
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [999854379-2]. Originating case number: 1:15-cr-00115-LMB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000003433].. [15-4644]
Appeal: 15-4644
Doc: 72
Filed: 01/13/2017
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4644
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WOSSEN ASSAYE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:15-cr-00115-LMB-1)
Submitted:
December 28, 2016
Decided:
January 13, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven P. Hanna, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J.
Boente,
United
States
Attorney,
Ankush
Khardori,
Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 15-4644
Doc: 72
Filed: 01/13/2017
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Wossen Assaye pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to
two counts of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during
and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) (2012).
Assaye
to
the
mandatory
The district court sentenced
minimum
imprisonment, and he now appeals.
sentence
of
32
years’
On appeal, Assaye argues that
the district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his
guilty plea, and abused its discretion in denying his motion to
appoint new counsel.
appeal
based
on
The Government has moved to dismiss the
an
appellate
waiver
contained
in
the
plea
agreement and further asserts that Assaye’s claims are without
merit.
The plea agreement contained a waiver of Assaye’s appellate
rights, and we conclude that Assaye knowingly and voluntarily
executed the appellate waiver.
However, we find that the issues
raised on appeal are within the narrow class of alleged errors
that
automatically
waiver.
fall
outside
the
scope
of
an
appellate
See United States v. Copeland, 707 F.3d 522, 530 (4th
Cir. 2013) (listing such errors); United States v. Attar, 38
F.3d 727, 733 n.2 (4th Cir. 1994) (appeal waiver does not bar
review
of
denial
of
motion
to
withdraw
plea
when
motion
“incorporates a colorable claim” of ineffective assistance).
2
Appeal: 15-4644
Doc: 72
Filed: 01/13/2017
Pg: 3 of 5
Turning to the substance of Assaye’s claims on appeal, we
assume,
without
sentencing
to
equivalent
of
deciding,
that
status
hearing
a
motions
to
his
motion
served
withdraw
his
as
plea
to
the
and
convert
his
functional
to
appoint
replacement counsel.
When a defendant seeks to withdraw his guilty plea prior to
sentencing, a district court should consider 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 to withdraw the plea; (4) whether
the defendant had the 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.
United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 384 (4th Cir. 2012).
We review denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse
of discretion.
Id. at 383.
As to the first factor, the district court’s thorough plea
colloquy and Assaye’s answers to the court’s questions confirm
that he knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty to the charges.
Furthermore,
Assaye
has
offered
no
credible
evidence
of
his
innocence; to the contrary, Assaye twice agreed to facts that
established his factual guilt.
Third, there was a significant
and unexplained delay between the entry of Assaye’s guilty plea
and the filing of any motion to withdraw that plea.
3
Appeal: 15-4644
Doc: 72
Filed: 01/13/2017
Pg: 4 of 5
The fourth factor is a closer question, but we conclude it
weighs against Assaye.
Although counsel provided Assaye with
some erroneous advice, it was ultimately irrelevant to the final
plea
agreement,
negotiation.
which
was
the
result
of
several
rounds
of
After extensive negotiations, counsel was able to
secure a substantial reduction in Assaye’s potential sentence.
Even
after
counsel’s
erroneous
advice
came
to
light,
Assaye
stated that he was “fully satisfied” with counsel’s performance
in negotiating the plea agreement.
The fifth and sixth Moore
factors also weighed in favor of denying Assaye’s motion.
We
therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Assaye’s motion. *
With regard to Assaye’s second claim, when a district court
has
denied
a
court-appointed
timeliness
of
request
lawyer,
the
by
we
motion;
a
defendant
to
consider
three
(2)
adequacy
the
replace
factors:
of
his
“(1)
the
the
court’s
subsequent inquiry; and (3) whether the attorney/client conflict
was so great that it had resulted in total lack of communication
preventing an adequate defense.”
F.3d
463,
467
(4th
Cir.
2012)
*
United States v. Horton, 693
(internal
quotation
marks
Nor does Assaye convince us that the district court abused
its discretion in failing to grant an evidentiary hearing on the
motion. See United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.
1991).
4
Appeal: 15-4644
Doc: 72
omitted).
After
Filed: 01/13/2017
Pg: 5 of 5
We review such a denial for abuse of discretion.
reviewing
the
record
in
light
of
these
factors,
Id.
we
conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Assaye’s motion for replacement counsel.
Finally, although Assaye has filed a motion to submit a
supplemental pro se brief, because counsel filed a merits brief
on Assaye’s behalf, we deny Assaye’s motion.
See United States
v. Penniegraft, 641 F.3d 566, 569 n.1 (4th Cir. 2011).
Consequently, we affirm Assaye’s convictions.
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
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?