US v. James Davi
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cr-00456-GJH-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. .. [16-4088]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
George J. Hazel, District Judge.
January 13, 2017
January 18, 2017
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2012); robbery of mail, money,
and other property of the United States, in violation of 18
On appeal, Davis argues that the district court abused
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.”
Fed. R. Crim. P.
In determining whether this burden has been met,
States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991).
proper Rule 11 plea colloquy is conducted, a defendant has a
United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 414 (4th Cir. 2003).
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
presumption that the plea is final and binding.”
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
months to bring this motion, a delay that we have previously
Moore, 931 F.2d at 248.
Although there was
inconvenience to the court, these factors alone do not warrant
See United States v. Sparks, 67 F.3d 1145, 1154 (4th
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in denying Davis’ motion to
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
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?