UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4377

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ROBERT IVAN HORTON, a/k/a Shug,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:05-cr-00235-RLV-DCK-13)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sandra J. Barrett, Asheville, North Carolina; Richard E. Beam, 

Jr., HUBBARD & BEAM, Gastonia, North Carolina, for Appellant. 

Edward R. Ryan, United States Attorney, Jennifer Lynn Dillon, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Ivan Horton appeals from his conviction after 

pleading guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to 

distribute cocaine and cocaine base. Horton alleges that the 

district court erred in denying his motion to withdraw his 

guilty plea. Finding no error, we affirm.

We review a district court’s decision denying a motion 

to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United 

States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). 

A defendant bears the burden of demonstrating to the district 

court’s satisfaction that a “fair and just reason” supports his 

request to withdraw. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(h). 

In determining whether the trial court abused its 

discretion in denying a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we

consider the six factors articulated in United States v. Moore, 

931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991), which were reiterated in 

Ubakanma. 215 F.3d at 424. The factors include, whether: 

(1) the defendant has offered credible evidence that his plea 

was not knowing or not voluntary; (2) the defendant has credibly 

asserted his legal innocence; (3) there has been a delay between 

the entering of the plea and the filing of the motion; (4) the 

defendant has had close assistance of competent counsel; (5) the 

withdrawal will cause prejudice to the government; and (6) the 
3

withdrawal will inconvenience the court and waste judicial 

resources. Moore, 931 F.2d at 248.

Although all the factors in Moore must be given 

appropriate weight, the key in determining whether a motion to 

withdraw should be granted is whether the plea hearing was 

properly conducted under Rule 11. United States v. Puckett, 61 

F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995). This court closely scrutinizes 

the Rule 11 colloquy and attaches a strong presumption that the 

plea is final and binding if the Rule 11 proceeding is adequate. 

Id.

We have reviewed the record and determine that 

Horton’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Further, he has 

not credibly asserted his legal innocence. We have considered 

the Moore factors and conclude that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in denying Horton’s motion to withdraw his 

guilty plea.

We therefore affirm the judgment. 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