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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000005266].. [16-4088]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-4088 Doc: 39 Filed: 01/18/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-4088 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES DAVIS, Defendant - Appellant.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 Chief Judge, Decided: and SHEDD and January 18, 2017 KEENAN, Circuit Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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Where a proper Rule 11 plea colloquy is conducted, a defendant has a “very limited basis upon which to have his plea withdrawn.”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

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?