US v. James Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cr-00456-GJH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000005266].. [16-4088]

Appeal: 16-4088

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/18/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4088

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES DAVIS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George J. Hazel, District Judge.
(8:14-cr-00456-GJH-1)

Submitted:

January 13, 2017

Before GREGORY,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

SHEDD

and

January 18, 2017

KEENAN,

Circuit

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Justin Eisele, SEDDIQ LAW FIRM, Upper Marlboro, Maryland, for
Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Mara V.J.
Senn, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Leah Jo
Bressack, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4088

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/18/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James

Davis

agreement,

to

pleaded

guilty,

conspiracy

to

pursuant

commit

to

Hobbs

a

written

Act

plea

robbery,

in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012); robbery of mail, money,
and other property of the United States, in violation of 18
U.S.C.

§ 2114(a)

firearm

during

violation
firearm

by

(2012).
its

of

in

using,

carrying,

relation

to

§ 924(c)

(2012);

U.S.C.

felon,

in

violation

a

and

crime

of

and

18

brandishing

of

violence,

possession

U.S.C.

of

a
in
a

§ 922(g)(1)

On appeal, Davis argues that the district court abused

discretion

plea.

and

18
a

(2012);

by

denying

his

motion

to

withdraw

his

guilty

We affirm.

We review a denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
for abuse of discretion.
434 (4th Cir. 2008).

United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424,
A defendant seeking to withdraw a plea

that has been accepted by the court must demonstrate “a fair and
just reason for requesting the withdrawal.”
11(d)(2)(B).
courts

should

Fed. R. Crim. P.

In determining whether this burden has been met,
consider

the

six

factors

identified

in

States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991).

United
Where a

proper Rule 11 plea colloquy is conducted, a defendant has a
“very

limited

basis

upon

which

to

have

his

plea

withdrawn.”

United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 414 (4th Cir. 2003).

2

Appeal: 16-4088

Doc: 39

Filed: 01/18/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

Davis does not dispute the validity of his guilty plea, and
our review of the plea colloquy confirms that Davis’ plea was
knowing

and

voluntary.

Accordingly,

there

is

presumption that the plea is final and binding.”
v.

Nicholson,

676

F.3d

376,

384

(4th

Cir.

“a

strong

United States

2012)

(internal

quotation marks omitted).
Our consideration of the remaining Moore factors reveals
nothing that would overcome this presumption.

Davis does not

offer a credible assertion of innocence, nor does he reasonably
challenge

the

competence

of

his

plea

counsel.

Davis

waited

months to bring this motion, a delay that we have previously
considered “long.”

Moore, 931 F.2d at 248.

minimal

of

evidence

prejudice

to

Although there was

the

Government

and

inconvenience to the court, these factors alone do not warrant
reversal.

See United States v. Sparks, 67 F.3d 1145, 1154 (4th

Cir. 1995).
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’ motion to
withdraw

his

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

3