US v. Willie Barnes, No. 09-4363 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4363 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILLIE EDWARD BARNES, a/k/a Big Will, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (3:08-cr-00064-JPB-DJJ-1) Submitted: December 2, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit December 23, 2009 Judges, and HAMILTON, Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen D. Herndon, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. Sharon L. Potter, United States Attorney, Paul T. Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Willie Barnes pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of possession with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of crack U.S.C. ยง 841(a)(1) (2006). cocaine, in violation of 21 The district court sentenced Barnes to 327 months imprisonment. Barnes now appeals, claiming that the district court erred in denying his motions to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm. Because district court Barnes was not was represented required to by consider counsel, Barnes the pro se letter filed on February 9, 2009, as a motion to withdraw his plea. n.17 See United States v. Vampire Nation, 451 F.3d 189, 206 (3rd Cir. 2006) (holding district court is within its authority to disregard pro se motions from a counseled party). Further, even if the letter had been construed as a motion to withdraw Barnes guilty plea, such a motion lacked merit. There is no absolute right to withdrawal of a guilty plea. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000) (citing United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991)). The defendant bears the burden of showing a fair and just reason for the withdrawal of his guilty plea. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). Fed. R. [A] properly conducted Rule 11 guilty plea colloquy leaves a defendant with a very limited basis upon which to have his plea withdrawn. 2 United States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 414 (4th Cir. 2003). have reviewed the record on With these standards in mind, we appeal and conclude that Barnes failed to present a fair and just reason that his guilty plea should be withdrawn. Barnes also alleges that the district court abused its discretion in denying withdraw his plea. his pro se, post-sentencing motion to After a defendant has been sentenced, the district court has no authority to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. 499 F.3d challenge 315, the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e); United States v. Battle, 319 (4th validity Cir. of 2007). the plea The after direct appeal or in a collateral attack. district court did not abuse its only vehicles sentencing Id. discretion are to by Accordingly, the in denying this motion. We therefore affirm the district court s judgment. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
