UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-4687 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RICKY MCKINLEY INGRAM,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (1:06-cr-00460-JAB)

Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Gregory Davis, Senior

Litigator, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna

Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, David Paul Folmar, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ricky McKinley Ingram appeals his conviction and 262-

month sentence for distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) (2000). Ingram’s attorney has filed

a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738

(1967), certifying there are no meritorious issues for appeal.

Ingram has been notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental

brief but has not done so. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

 Ingram raises the issue of whether the district court

erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. “[T]he

district court has discretion to decide whether a ‘fair and just

reason’ exists upon which to grant a withdrawal.” United States v.

Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 413 (4th Cir. 2003). The district court’s

denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed for abuse

of discretion. United States v. Wilson, 81 F.3d 1300, 1305 (4th

Cir. 1996).

In determining whether a defendant has shown a “fair and

just reason” to withdraw his guilty plea, a court examines 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; (4) whether defendant has

had close assistance of competent counsel; (5) whether withdrawal
*

United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).

- 3 -

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). The most

important consideration in resolving a motion to withdraw a plea,

however, is whether the Rule 11 plea colloquy was properly

conducted. Bowman, 348 F.3d at 414. We closely scrutinize the

Rule 11 hearing and attach a strong presumption that the plea is

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

States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992). We have

reviewed the transcripts of the Rule 11 proceeding and the

sentencing hearing, and we conclude that the district court did not

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

guilty plea. 

Counsel also suggests that Ingram’s sentence is

unreasonable. In imposing a sentence post-Booker,* courts still

must calculate the applicable guideline range after making the

appropriate findings of fact and consider the range in conjunction

with other relevant factors under the guidelines and 18 U.S.C.A.

§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). United States v. Moreland, 437

F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 2054 (2006).

This court will affirm a post-Booker sentence if it “is within the

statutorily prescribed range and is reasonable.” Id. at 433

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Rita v. United
- 4 -

States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007). The district court

properly calculated the guideline range and appropriately treated

the sentencing guidelines as advisory. We find that Ingram’s

sentence within the guidelines range is reasonable.

Pursuant to Anders, we have examined the entire record

and find no meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm

the judgment of the district court. This court requires that

counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the

client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that

such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this

court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion

must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. 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