UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-4445

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DEVONE SHARNELL BEST,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III, 

Chief District Judge. (7:12-cr-00064-D-1)

Submitted: March 26, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mary Jude Darrow, LAW OFFICE OF MARY JUDE DARROW, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States 

Attorney, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Shailika S. Kotiya, Assistant 

United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Devone Sharnell Best pled guilty, pursuant to a written 

plea agreement, to one count of distributing crack cocaine, 21 

U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2012), and was sentenced to 180 months’ 

imprisonment. He appeals, claiming that the district court 

erred in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and that 

he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Best also claims 

prosecutorial misconduct in the negotiation of his plea. 

Finding no error, we affirm. 

After the court accepts a guilty plea, but before 

sentencing, a defendant may withdraw his guilty plea if he “can 

show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d). The Rule does not afford a defendant an 

absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea, however. United 

States v. Bowman, 348 F.3d 408, 413 (4th Cir. 2003); United 

States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). We review a 

district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea 

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 

421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). 

The burden of “show[ing] a fair and just reason” for 

withdrawal of the plea rests with the defendant. Id. A fair 

and just reason “essentially challenges the fairness” of the 

Rule 11 proceeding. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

We have developed a nonexclusive list of factors for the 
3

district court to use in deciding if the defendant has met his 

burden:

(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 will cause prejudice to the government, and 

(6) whether it will inconvenience the court and waste 

judicial resources.

Moore, 931 F.2d at 248. 

“The most important consideration in resolving a motion to 

withdraw a guilty plea is an evaluation of the Rule 11 colloquy. 

. . . Accordingly, a properly conducted Rule 11 . . . colloquy 

leaves a defendant with a very limited basis upon which to have 

his plea withdrawn.” Bowman, 348 F.3d at 414. “If an 

appropriately conducted Rule 11 proceeding is to serve a 

meaningful function, on which the criminal justice system can 

rely, it must be recognized to raise a strong presumption that 

the plea is final and binding.” United States v. Lambey, 974 

F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). 

With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the 

transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we conclude that the district 

court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Best failed 

to show a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea. 
4

Best also asserts that counsel was ineffective for failing 

to properly advise him of the possibility of a career offender 

enhancement at sentencing. Unless an attorney’s ineffectiveness 

conclusively appears on the face of the record, ineffective 

assistance claims are not generally addressed on direct appeal. 

United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 435 (4th Cir. 2008). 

Instead, such claims should be raised in a motion brought 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), in order to permit 

sufficient development of the record. United States v. 

Baptiste, 596 F.3d 214, 216 n.1 (4th Cir. 2010). Because the 

record does not conclusively establish ineffective assistance of 

counsel, we conclude that Best’s claim should be raised, if at 

all, in a § 2255 motion. 

Finally, Best asserts that the Government engaged in 

misconduct by engaging in bad faith plea negotiations.

Specifically, he asserts that the government failed to inform 

him that he would be subject to the career offender enhancement, 

and that the government stipulated to a drug quantity with 

Best’s counsel, knowing that the career offender enhancement 

would apply. To succeed on this claim, Best must demonstrate 

that the prosecution’s conduct was, in fact, improper, and that 

he was deprived of a fair trial as a result. United States v. 

Powell, 680 F.3d 350, 358 (4th Cir. 2012). Best has not made

such a showing. 
5

Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this Court and argument would not aid in 

the decisional process.

AFFIRMED