UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-4754

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

NDUBUISI JOSEPH OKAFOR, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:07-cr-00190-AW-1) 

Submitted: April 17, 2009 Decided: May 14, 2009 

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Pleasant S. Brodnax, III, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod 

J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Sandra Wilkinson, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Dr. Ndubuisi Joseph Okafor appeals his conviction 

following his guilty plea to tax evasion in violation of 26 

U.S.C. § 7201 (2006), filing false income tax returns in 

violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) (2006), and health care fraud 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1347 (2006). The sole issue Okafor 

raises on appeal is whether the district court erred by denying 

his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 

 We review the 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). “A 

defendant has no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea.” 

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

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Once the 

district court has accepted a defendant’s guilty plea, it is 

within the court’s discretion whether to grant a motion to 

withdraw it. United States v. Battle, 499 F.3d 315, 319 (4th 

Cir. 2007). The defendant bears the burden of showing a “fair 

and just reason” for withdrawing his guilty plea. Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 11(d)(2)(B); Battle, 499 F.3d at 319. “[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). 

2 
3 

 In deciding whether to permit a defendant to withdraw 

his guilty plea, a district court considers: 

(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 the entry of the plea and filing 

of the motion; (4) whether the defendant has had close 

assistance of counsel; (5) whether withdrawal will 

cause prejudice to the government; and (6) whether 

withdrawal will inconvenience the court and waste 

judicial resources. 

 

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

 The record discloses that the district court’s hearing 

held pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 was extensive, as was the 

subsequent hearing on the motion to withdraw. Further, we 

afford Okafor’s guilty plea a strong presumption of validity. 

We find no credible evidence of ineffectiveness of counsel, 

undue pressure, lack of competence, or actual innocence. 

 After reviewing the Moore factors and the district 

court’s articulated reasons for denying Okafor’s motion to 

withdraw, we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. 

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