US v. Ronnie Holmes, No. 14-4087 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-4087 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. RONNIE PIERRE HOLMES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O Grady, District Judge. (1:13-cr-00278-LO-1) Submitted: June 16, 2014 Decided: July 29, 2014 Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alan H. Yamamoto, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Stacey K. Luck, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Michael J. Frank, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronnie written plea violation of Pierre Holmes pled agreement, to 18 ยงยง 1591(a) U.S.C. sex guilty, trafficking and 2 pursuant of a (2012). to a child, in Prior to sentencing, Holmes moved to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging that he was not properly medicated at the time of his plea and that his counsel was ineffective. and sentenced Holmes to a term The court denied the motion of 168 months imprisonment. Holmes now appeals, challenging the district court s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. * Finding no error, we affirm. We review for abuse of discretion the district court s denial of a defendant s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 383 (4th Cir. 2012). Before sentencing, a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea only by demonstrating United States v. a fair Bowman, and 348 just F.3d reason 408, (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B)). 413 for (4th withdrawal. Cir. 2003) [A] fair and just reason for withdrawing a plea is one that essentially challenges * In his brief, Holmes also asserts that the appellate waiver provision in his plea agreement should not bar this court from reviewing his challenge to the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. The Government has expressly declined to seek enforcement of the waiver, and we decline to enforce it sua sponte. United States v. Jones, 667 F.3d 477, 486 (4th Cir. 2012). 2 . . . the fairness of the Rule 11 proceeding . . . . United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). The defendant bears the heavy existence of such a reason. 561 F.3d 345, 348 (4th burden of demonstrating the United States v. Thompson-Riviere, Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). A strong properly-conducted presumption that the Rule plea is 11 colloquy final and raise[s] binding, a and therefore leaves a defendant with a very limited basis upon which to have his plea withdrawn. (internal sworn quotation declarations marks during presumption of verity. omitted). the plea Bowman, 348 F.3d at 414 Moreover, colloquy a defendant s carry a strong Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977). We have articulated a nonexclusive list of six factors to be considered in determining whether to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea. Cir. 1991). United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th These factors include: (1) whether the defendant has offered credible evidence that his plea was unknowing or involuntary; (2) whether the defendant credibly asserted his legal innocence; (3) the extent of delay between entering the plea and filing the motion to withdraw the plea; (4) whether the defendant enjoyed the close assistance of competent counsel ; (5) whether withdrawal would prejudice 3 the government; and (6) whether withdrawal would inconvenience the court and waste judicial resources. Nicholson, 676 F.3d at 384. Upon careful review of the record, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court s conclusion that Holmes failed to meet his burden to demonstrate a fair and just reason for withdrawal. Rather, we agree with the district court s careful analysis of the Moore factors and resulting conclusion that none of these factors weighed in Holmes favor. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
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.
