UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4548

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

DONALD RAYFIELD HANDY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.

(1:05-cr-00279-RDB)

Submitted: September 17, 2007 Decided: October 10, 2007

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Jay Graham, KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Richard C.

Kay, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

PER CURIAM:

Donald Rayfield Handy pled guilty to conspiracy to

distribute and to possess with intent to distribute cocaine base

and was sentenced to 210 months in prison. He now appeals,

claiming that the district court should have allowed him to

withdraw his guilty plea and that he received ineffective

assistance of counsel. We affirm. 

Our review is for abuse of discretion. See United

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

of a guilty plea is not a matter of right. United States v.

Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 413 (4th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the

burden of showing a “fair and just reason” for the withdrawal of

his plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “[A] ‘fair and just’

reason . . . is one that essentially challenges . . . the fairness

of the Rule 11 proceeding.” United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d

1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). “[A]n appropriately

conducted Rule 11 proceeding . . . raise[s] a strong presumption

that the plea is final and binding.” Id. 

Courts consider six factors in determining whether

withdrawal of a guilty plea is proper:

(1) whether the defendant has offered credible

evidence that his plea was not knowing or

otherwise involuntary; (2) whether the

defendant has credibly asserted his legal

innocence; (3) whether there has been a delay

between entry of the plea and filing of the

motion; (4) whether the defendant has had

close assistance of counsel; (5) whether
- 3 -

withdrawal will cause prejudice to the

government; and (6) whether withdrawal will

inconvenience the court and waste judicial

resources.

Ubakanma, 215 F.3d at 424 (citing United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d

245, 248) (4th Cir. 1991) (footnote omitted)). 

With these factors in mind, we have reviewed the record

and the parties’ briefs on appeal. We conclude that Handy did not

demonstrate a “fair and just” reason for withdrawing his guilty

plea, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying the motion. 

Further, ineffective assistance of counsel does not

appear on the face of the record. We accordingly decline to

address Handy’s claim of ineffective assistance. See United

States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d 114, 120-21 (4th Cir. 1991). 

We therefore affirm Handy’s 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