UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 99-4950

GREGORY ROLAND PRUESS,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge.

(CR-97-300)

Submitted: January 11, 2001

Decided: January 19, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Marcia G. Shein, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA G. SHEIN, P.C.,

Decatur, Georgia, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States

Attorney, Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 
OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Gregory Roland Pruess appeals from his conviction on a guilty plea

and sentence on multiple counts of engaging in the business of

importing, manufacturing, and dealing in explosive material and firearms without a license (Counts 1 through 4 and 11 through 14), in

violation of 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 842(a), 922(a) (West Supp. 2000), and

other related counts which he does not challenge on appeal. Pruess

claims the district court abused its discretion in denying his request

to withdraw his guilty plea as to the above-referenced counts, and that

the district court erred in failing to address the applicability of United

States Sentencing Guidelines Manual, § 2K2.1(b)(2) (1998). We

affirm Pruess’s conviction and sentence. 

Pruess seeks to set aside his guilty plea because the element "engaged in the business" allegedly was not properly charged and

because he was only a collector/hobbyist of weaponry and his sales

of firearms, explosives, and ammunition to undercover operatives

were not criminally motivated. A guilty plea is invalid if the defendant does not comprehend his constitutional protections and the

charges lodged against him. Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 645

n.13 (1976). A defendant must receive adequate notice of the critical

elements of his case, and due process requires that a defendant be

legally competent to plead guilty. Id.; Roach v. Martin, 757 F.2d

1463, 1480 (4th Cir. 1985). This Court reviews a district court’s decision on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion,

United States v. Lambert, 994 F.2d 1088, 1093 (4th Cir. 1993), and

the district court’s factual findings in support of its decision to deny

the motion will be overturned only if clearly erroneous. United States

v. Suter, 755 F.2d 523, 525 (7th Cir. 1985). 

Our review discloses that the district court’s factual finding that

Pruess’s guilty plea to the charges at issue was knowingly and voluntarily entered is not clearly erroneous, and that it is supported fully by

Pruess’s responses during his Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 colloquy and by the

evidence presented before the court that established his illegal weapons trafficking. See generally United States v. DeFusco, 949 F.2d

114, 116-17 (4th Cir. 1991). 

2 UNITED STATES v. PRUESS
Pruess further seeks vacation of his sentence and remand to address

the applicability of USSG § 2K2.1(b)(2), again claiming that he possessed the weaponry solely for lawful collection purposes. Even if

Pruess properly raised this issue for consideration before the district

court, we find that the findings of the district court satisfy Fed. R.

Crim. P. 32(c). United States v. Walker, 29 F.3d 908, 911 (4th Cir.

1994). Further, this provision of the guidelines does not apply to

Pruess, given his possession of machine guns and his prior felony

conviction, which disqualify him from the adjustment he seeks. See

USSG § 2K2.1(a)(4)(B); § 2K2.1, Application Note 6. 

We deny Pruess’s motion to file a pro se supplemental brief

because he is represented by counsel. 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

UNITED STATES v. PRUESS 3