Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles A. GHOLSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-06-18
Citations: 13 F. App'x 77
Docket Number: No. 00-4576
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles A. GHOLSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 13
Pages: 77–77

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles A. GHOLSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-4576.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 31, 2001.
Decided June 18, 2001.
Sol Zalel Rosen, Washington, DC, for appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, VA, for appellee.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles A. Gholson pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute cocaine base (with previous drug distribution conviction). On appeal, he alleges that the district court erred by denying his later motion to withdraw his guilty plea and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Gholson appeals from his conviction and 262-month sentence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
We do not find that the district court abused its discretion by denying Gholson's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir.2000). The court applied the correct law, and we find no reversible error. United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.1991) (listing factors to be considered). Neither do we find ineffective assistance of counsel "conclusively appears" on the face of the record and thus deny Gholson's attempt to raise this issue on direct appeal. United States v. Richardson, 195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1096, 120 S.Ct. 837, 145 L.Ed.2d 704 (2000).
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.