UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 97-4326

JOSEPH LYNN FRANCIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.

James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-97-12-R)

Submitted: November 12, 1997

Decided: December 5, 1997

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Gary M. Bowman, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P.

Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Jennie L.M. Waering, Assistant

United States Attorney, Thomas E. Booth, UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Joseph Lynn Francis was convicted pursuant to his

guilty pleas of one count each of unauthorized use of an access device

(18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) (1994)) and impersonating a government

agent (18 U.S.C. § 912 (1994)). On appeal, he asserts that the district

court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his

guilty plea. Francis based his motion on his allegation that his confession was illegally obtained. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.

Francis acquired numerous credit cards by falsely representing to

others by telephone that he was an agent with a credit card company.

Over a two-month period, Francis used the cards to purchase more

than $20,000 worth of goods and services. On some occasions, he

pressured merchants to accept the credit cards by falsely representing

himself as an agent with the "United States Fugitive Retrieval

Agency," a nonexistent agency. Francis was eventually apprehended

by Virginia authorities and charged under state law for credit card

fraud. Pursuant to his request, an attorney from the local public

defender's office was appointed to represent him.

However, prior to consulting with this attorney, Francis initiated

conversations with state and federal agents in an effort to confess his

crimes and be prosecuted under federal law. The record discloses that

Francis sought federal prosecution because he acted as an informant

while he was a state prisoner. His testimony resulted in the conviction

of three capital murderers, and thus Francis feared for his life if he

returned to the state prison system. Prior to interviewing him, agents

fully advised Francis of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona,

384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Francis executed a waiver each time.

Francis cooperated fully with authorities and pled guilty at trial

pursuant to a plea agreement. Prior to sentencing, Francis, who by this

 2
time had a different attorney, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty

plea on the ground that his confession was illegally obtained when

agents questioned him after he had invoked his right to counsel. The

district court conducted a hearing and denied the motion.

We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Francis's motion. The sole basis for the motion was Francis's

belief that his confession was illegally obtained and would be suppressed if he went to trial, thereby resulting in an acquittal. We disagree. While Francis is correct that authorities may not continue to

question a suspect after he invokes his right to counsel, this right can

be waived if the defendant subsequently initiates further communication with authorities. See Edwards v. Arizona , 451 U.S. 477, 484-85

(1981); United States v. Evans, 917 F.2d 800, 804-05 (4th Cir. 1990),

overruled on other grounds by United States v. Lancaster, 96 F.3d

734 (4th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, #6D6D 6D# U.S. ___, 65 U.S.L.W. 3569

(U.S. Feb. 18, 1997) (No. 96-6450). Here, the district court expressly

found, and Francis admitted, that he initiated contact with federal

authorities which led to his confession. In fact, the record discloses

that Francis insisted on cooperating with federal authorities. Moreover, Francis was advised of his rights prior to each interview and

waived them every time. As a result, we conclude that Francis's confession was not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights and

that there was no basis for withdrawal of his guilty plea.

Accordingly, we affirm Francis's convictions and sentence. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the material before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

 3