Court Opinion

ID: 1002548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 18:12:32.710756+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:43.932017
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 00-4068

ALEXANDER M. KATES,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg.
Irene M. Keeley, District Judge.
(CR-99-27)

Submitted: May 31, 2000

Decided: September 19, 2000

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Scott A. Curnutte, Elkins, West Virginia, for Appellant. Melvin W.
Kahle, Jr., United States Attorney, Stephen D. Warner, Assistant
United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Alexander M. Kates appeals his conviction and sentence following
his plea of guilty to distribution of LSD within 1000 feet of a school
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 860(a) (1994). Less than one
week prior to his trial, Kates moved to substitute a retained attorney
for his court-appointed defense counsel and further moved for a con-
tinuance to permit his new attorney to prepare for trial. After a hear-
ing the district court denied both motions but stated that Kates'
retained attorney could assist Kates' appointed counsel at trial.
Approximately two hours after the court's ruling, Kates pleaded
guilty to the drug charge. The district court sentenced Kates to 120
months' imprisonment. We affirm the conviction and sentence.

Kates claims that the district court's denial of his motion for a con-
tinuance pressured him to enter an involuntary guilty plea. We have
reviewed the record and find that the district court conducted a proper
colloquy pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Kates' statements at his plea
hearing confirm that he was pleading guilty of his own free will, with-
out threats, force or harassment. Kates cannot now disavow the state-
ments he made at the plea hearing. See United States v. DeFusco, 949
F.2d 114, 119 (4th Cir. 1991); Via v. Superintendent, Powhatan Cor-
rectional Ctr., 643 F.2d 167, 171 (4th Cir. 1981). Accordingly, we
find that Kates entered a valid guilty plea to the drug charge.

Kates' second contention on appeal is that the district court abused
its discretion when it denied his motions to substitute counsel and for
a continuance. The district court did not abuse its discretion in deny-
ing the motion to substitute counsel because, as the district court
found, Kates' counsel was a competent attorney experienced in drug
cases and the only reason cited for the motion was the serious nature
of the charges. Furthermore, the district court did not abuse its discre-
tion in denying the motion for a continuance because there was no
reason to grant such a continuance once the motion for new counsel
was denied.

We therefore affirm the district court's order of judgment and con-
viction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

                     2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3
t