Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 08-4714
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Roger W. Titus, District Judge.
(8:07-cr-00189-RWT-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Delfon
Lebrew
Hare
pleaded
guilty
pursuant
to
On
Finding no error, we
affirm.
We review a district courts denial of a motion to
withdraw
States v.
guilty
plea
Ubakanma,
215
for
abuse
F.3d
421,
of
424
discretion.
(4th
Cir.
United
2000).
the
district
court
has
accepted
defendants
Fed. R. Crim.
proceeding . . . .
the
fairness
of
the
Rule
11
(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 defendant has had
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. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991).
The
first, second, and fourth of the Moore factors carry the most
weight
in
these
defendant
has
expectations.
Cir. 1995).
considerations,
a
good
reason
as
they
to
concern
upset
whether
settled
the
systemic
v.
Allison,
conducted
Rule
431
11
U.S.
63,
guilty
74
plea
(1977).
Thus,
colloquy
leaves
defendant with a very limited basis upon which to have his plea
Bowman, 348 F.3d at 414.
withdrawn.
In
courts
reviewing
articulated
withdraw,
discretion
we
in
reasons
conclude
its
the
that
denial.
Moore
factors
and
for
denying
Hares
the
court
The
record
did
the
not
discloses
district
motion
to
abuse
its
that
the
The
standard
of
reasonableness
and
(2)
that
he
was
(internal
omitted).
fell
quotation
marks,
alterations
and
citation
below
an
objective
standard
of
reasonableness.
In
This court
petition
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
for
further
review.
move
in
representation.
this
court
for
leave
to
withdraw
from
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED