UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-5255

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

CARROL LEE OWENS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 08-8361

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

CARROL LEE OWENS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 08-8429

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 
CARROL LEE OWENS, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, 

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00025-LHT-1) 

Submitted: November 23, 2009 Decided: December 31, 2009 

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Faith S. Bushnaq, BUSHNAQ LAW OFFICE, PLLC, Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Edward R. Ryan, Acting United States 

Attorney, Mark A. Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 
PER CURIAM: 

 Carrol Lee Owens pled guilty to Count 8, bank fraud in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344, 2 (2006), and Count 9, fraud 

with identification documents, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 

§ 1028(A) (West 2000 & Supp. 2009) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (2006). He 

was sentenced to twenty-four-month sentences for each violation, 

to be served consecutively, for a total sentence of forty-eight 

months. On appeal, counsel has raised two issues: First, 

whether Owens’ waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary and 

second, whether the district court erred by denying Owens’ 

motion to substitute counsel. Owens has filed a pro se 

supplemental brief listing two additional issues. Owens first 

alleges that the district court erred by denying his motion to 

withdraw his plea agreement. In his remaining issue, Owens 

argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to 

dismiss the indictment and motion to strike surplusage from the 

indictment. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

 We find no error in the district court’s decision to 

allow Owens to waive his right to counsel and proceed pro se. 

See United States v. Singleton, 107 F.3d 1091, 1097 n.3 (4th 

Cir. 1997) (giving review standard). A review of the record 

reveals that Owens knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to 

counsel. United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 110-11 (4th 

Cir. 1988). Neither do we find that the district court abused 

3 
its discretion when it denied Owens’ motion to substitute 

counsel, made the day after Owens informed the court he was 

willing and able to represent himself better than his appointed 

counsel. See United States v. Corporan-Cuevas, 35 F.3d 953, 956 

(4th Cir. 1994) (stating review standard). 

 Owens’ pro se issues are also lacking. Owens fails to 

show that the district court abused its discretion in denying 

his motion to withdraw his plea agreement. See United States v. 

Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000) (providing review 

standard). Finally, we find no reversible error in the district 

court’s denial of Owens’ motion to dismiss his indictment and 

motion to strike surplusage from the indictment. The indictment 

informed Owens of the crimes for which he was being prosecuted 

and we discern no grounds for dismissal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 

7(c)(1); see United States v. Hatcher, 560 F.3d 222, 224 (4th 

Cir. 2009). As found by the district court, Owens failed to 

identify irrelevant and prejudicial allegations as would be 

needed in a motion to strike surplusage from an indictment. See

Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(d). Owens has failed to show that the 

district court abused its discretion in denying the motions. 

United States v. Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 733 (4th Cir. 2006) 

(discussing review standard and legal analysis); United 

States v. Poore, 594 F.2d 39, 41 (4th Cir. 1979) (same). 

4 
5 

 Accordingly, we affirm Owens’ convictions. 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