UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4284

GARRY STEPHAN, a/k/a Gorilla,

Defendant-Appellant. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.  No. 00-4285

GARRY STEPHAN, a/k/a Gorilla,

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District Judge.

(CR-99-23, CR-99-91)

Submitted: March 30, 2001

Decided: May 10, 2001

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

Marvin D. Miller, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.

Fahey, United States Attorney, Jenifer J. Schall, Special Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

Garry Stephan appeals his conviction pursuant to his guilty plea to

conspiring to maintain a place for the use of controlled substances in

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856 (1994), and possession of a firearm by

a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (1994). The

factual basis proffered by the Government at the plea hearing established that Stephan, as the president of a motorcycle club named the

Renegades, allowed and encouraged methamphetamine use and sales

at the clubhouse of the group in Virginia Beach, Virginia. On appeal,

Stephan contends that the district court erred in declining to allow

Stephan to withdraw his guilty plea in the wake of the acquittal of

several of his co-conspirators. Stephan also challenges the district

court’s imposition of a special condition of supervised release barring

Stephan from operating a motor vehicle during the pendency of his

term of supervised release. Finding no merit to either claim of error

on appeal, we affirm Stephan’s conviction and sentence. 

Stephan possesses no absolute right to withdraw his plea of guilty.

United States v. Ewing, 957 F.2d 115, 118 (4th Cir. 1992). This Court

reviews the district court’s refusal to allow a defendant to withdraw

a guilty plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 for abuse of discretion. United

States v. Wilson, 81 F.3d 1300, 1305 (4th Cir. 1996). In light of the

complete and thorough nature of the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing, see

United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir. 1995), and the

district court’s consideration of Stephan’s motion, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in declining to allow

Stephan to withdraw his plea. United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245,

248 (4th Cir. 1991). Similarly, we can discern no abuse of discretion

in the imposition of a special condition on Stephan’s supervised

release. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) (1994); United States v. Ritter, 118

F.3d 502, 504 (6th Cir. 1997). The district court did not rely on an

erroneous conclusion of fact or law in imposing the restriction on

2 UNITED STATES v. STEPHAN
operation of motor vehicles. See James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239

(4th Cir. 1993). 

Finding no merit to either of Stephan’s contentions on appeal, we

affirm his conviction and sentence. 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. STEPHAN 3