United States v. Sarwat ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-4228
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    MUHAMMAD SARWAT,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District
    Judge. (CR-02-264)
    Submitted:   August 25, 2003                 Decided:   October 10, 2003
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Rudolph A. Ashton, III, MCCOTTER, ASHTON & SMITH, P.A., New Bern,
    North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States
    Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney,
    Christine Witcover Dean, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh,
    North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Muhammad Sarwat appeals his conviction and sentence of five
    months’ imprisonment following his guilty plea to fraud and misuse
    of visas, permits, and other documents, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1546
    (b) (2000).      Sarwat argues the district court abused its
    discretion by denying his motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
    Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
    We review the 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). Sarwat must present a “fair and just” reason for
    withdrawing his guilty plea. United States v. Moore, 
    931 F.2d 245
    ,
    248 (4th Cir. 1991).    Based on the factors set forth in Moore, we
    find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
    motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
    Accordingly, we affirm Sarwat’s conviction.       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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-4228

Filed Date: 10/10/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021