Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04419/USCOURTS-ca4-16-04419-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Polhill
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-4419

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOHN POLHILL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:15-cr-00012-REP-1)

Submitted: March 7, 2017 Decided: March 17, 2017

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Geremy C. Kamens, Federal Public Defender, Frances H. Pratt, 

Valencia D. Roberts, Assistant Federal Public Defenders, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United 

States Attorney, Richard D. Cooke, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-4419 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

In accordance with a written plea agreement, John Polhill 

pled guilty to bank robbery and aiding and abetting bank 

robbery, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a), 2 (2012) (Count One), and 

possession and discharge of a firearm in furtherance of a crime 

of violence and aiding and abetting the same, 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 924(c), 2 (2012) (Count Two). Six months after entering his 

plea, Polhill moved to withdraw it, claiming that bank robbery 

was not a crime of violence upon which a § 924(c) conviction 

could be predicated. The district court applied the six-factor 

test set forth in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th 

Cir. 1991), and denied the motion. Polhill received an 

aggregate sentence of 207 months. He now appeals, claiming that 

the district court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw 

the guilty plea. We affirm.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw 

a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. 

Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 383 (4th Cir. 2012). To withdraw a 

guilty plea before sentencing, a defendant must “show a fair and 

just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 

11(d)(2)(B). “The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating 

that withdrawal should be granted.” United States v. 

Thompson-Riviere, 561 F.3d 345, 348 (4th Cir. 2009) (alteration 

and internal quotation marks omitted). Where the district court 

Appeal: 16-4419 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pg: 2 of 4
3

substantially complied with the Rule 11 requirements, the 

defendant must overcome a strong presumption that his guilty 

plea is final and binding. United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 

1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). 

In deciding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, the 

district court typically considers the following six factors:

(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 to withdraw the plea; (4) whether 

the defendant had the close assistance of competent 

counsel; (5) whether withdrawal will cause prejudice 

to the government; and (6) whether [withdrawal] will 

inconvenience the court and waste judicial resources.

Moore, 931 F.2d at 248.

Of the six Moore factors, Polhill’s brief addresses only 

the second. He argues that he is legally innocent of the 

firearm conviction because bank robbery cannot serve as a 

predicate crime of violence for a § 924(c) conviction. We 

recently held that a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) is a 

crime of violence under the force clause of § 924(c)(3). United 

States v. McNeal, 818 F.3d 141, 151-57 & n.8 (4th Cir. 2016). 

Thus, Polhill’s bank robbery conviction qualified as a predicate 

crime of violence for his § 924(c) conviction. 

We hold that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Polhill’s motion to withdraw his guilty 

Appeal: 16-4419 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pg: 3 of 4
4

plea. We therefore affirm. 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

Appeal: 16-4419 Doc: 30 Filed: 03/17/2017 Pg: 4 of 4