Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Bost, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    37 views4 pages
    Reginald Tony Bost appealed the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute heroin. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial. The Fourth Circuit found that Bost failed to offer credible evidence that his plea was involuntary or that he was legally innocent. During the plea hearing, Bost swore under oath that he committed the crime and agreed to a statement of facts describing his involvement. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining Bost's assertions of innocence during the withdrawal motion were not credible.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-11-21 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-4788

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Reginald Tony Bost appealed the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute heroin. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial. The Fourth Circuit found that Bost failed to offer credible evidence that his plea was involuntary or that he was legally innocent. During the plea hearing, Bost swore under oath that he committed the crime and agreed to a statement of facts describing his involvement. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining Bost's assertions of innocence during the withdrawal motion were not credible.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    37 views4 pages

    United States v. Bost, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Reginald Tony Bost appealed the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute heroin. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial. The Fourth Circuit found that Bost failed to offer credible evidence that his plea was involuntary or that he was legally innocent. During the plea hearing, Bost swore under oath that he committed the crime and agreed to a statement of facts describing his involvement. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining Bost's assertions of innocence during the withdrawal motion were not credible.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    REGINALD TONY BOST,
    Defendant-Appellant.

    No. 99-4788

    Appeal from the United States District Court


    for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge.
    (CR-98-491-MJG)
    Submitted: November 3, 2000
    Decided: November 21, 2000
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    COUNSEL
    Thanos Kanellakos, THANOS KANELLAKOS, P.C., Baltimore,
    Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney,
    Angela R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See


    Local Rule 36(c).

    UNITED STATES v. BOST

    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Reginald Tony Bost appeals the district courts denial of his motion
    to withdraw his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute and possess
    with intent to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. 846
    (West 1999 & Supp. 2000). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm
    the district courts denial of the motion and affirm Bosts conviction.
    After entering a plea agreement on the second day of his trial, Bost
    pled guilty to the single count indictment. The district court conducted a thorough and comprehensive inquiry in accordance with Fed.
    R. Crim. P. 11, determined that Bost was pleading guilty knowingly
    and voluntarily, and accepted his plea. Approximately three weeks
    later, Bost sought to withdraw his plea, asserting that his plea was
    involuntary due to duress and ineffective assistance of counsel, and
    that he was innocent. At the hearing on the motion to withdraw, Bost,
    represented by new counsel, testified that his guilty plea resulted from
    pressure exerted by his previous attorney, that he had asserted his
    innocence to that attorney at every opportunity, and that he was
    scared on the day of trial because he did not feel his attorney had adequately prepared for trial as he had requested.
    Bosts previous attorney also testified. He explained his evaluation
    of the merits of Bosts case and that he had thoroughly discussed this
    evaluation with Bost, as well as the possible defenses available. He
    believed that Bost fully understood the plea agreement and the advantages of pleading guilty under the sentencing guidelines, and that Bost
    entered his plea voluntarily. Finally, he stated that his evaluation of
    the case led him to conclude that he could not produce evidence to
    support a valid defense to the charge, and that there were no meritorious pretrial motions. The district court denied the motion to withdraw.
    On appeal, Bost contends that the district court erred in failing to
    grant his motion to withdraw because his guilty plea was not voluntary and that he has and continues to assert his innocence.
    This court reviews the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
    for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Craig, 985 F.2d 175, 178
    (4th Cir. 1993). A defendant bears the burden of demonstrating to the

    UNITED STATES v. BOST

    district courts satisfaction that a "fair and just reason" supports his
    request to withdraw. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e). We consider six factors
    when reviewing whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea:
    (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). On appeal,
    Bosts contentions are limited to the first two factors in this analysis.
    Relying on Bosts statements during the plea hearing held pursuant
    to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, the district court determined that Bost failed
    to offer credible evidence that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. See United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir.
    1992) (stating that properly conducted Rule 11 proceeding "raise[s]
    a strong presumption that the plea is final and binding."). Our review
    of the record reveals no error in this finding.
    The court also found that Bost failed to credibly assert a claim of
    legal innocence. During the Rule 11 inquiry, Bost swore under oath
    that he committed the charged crime. He also agreed to a detailed
    statement of facts, incorporated into his plea agreement, that
    described his involvement in the conspiracy and distribution of heroin, and reiterated his agreement with these facts during the plea
    inquiry. Moreover, during the sentencing hearing, Bost admitted
    under oath that he knew he was being used by the leaders of the conspiracy to distribute drugs. Contrary to Bosts assertions, his statements under oath, rather than denying his guilt, merely sought to
    minimize his role in the conspiracy. The district court did not err in
    finding that Bosts assertions of innocence were not credible. See
    Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) ("Solemn declarations
    in open court carry a strong presumption of verity.").

    UNITED STATES v. BOST

    Our review reveals that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bosts motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Accordingly, we deny relief on this claim and affirm Bosts conviction. We
    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like