for the Fourth Circuit for the Fourth Circuit for the Fourth Circuit United States… v. Alexander O'brian Williams

Filed: September 9, 2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nos. 01-4812(L)
(CR-00-287)
United States of America,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
Alexander O’Brian Williams,
Defendant - Appellant.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed September 3, 2002, as
follows:
On the cover sheet, section 3 -- the appeal number is
corrected to read “No. 02-4204.”
For the Court - By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk

-- 1 of 4 --

UNPUBLISHED UNPUBLISHED UNPUBLISHED UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 01-4812
ALEXANDER O'BRIAN WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 02-4204
ALEXANDER O'BRIAN WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham.
Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge.
(CR-00-287)
Submitted: August 8, 2002
Decided: September 3, 2002
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
____________________________________________________________
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
____________________________________________________________
COUNSEL COUNSEL COUNSEL COUNSEL
Sofie W. Hosford, HOSFORD & HOSFORD, P.L.L.C., Wilmington,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States

-- 2 of 4 --

Attorney, Steven H. Levin, Assistant United States Attorney, Greens-
boro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
____________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
____________________________________________________________
OPINION OPINION OPINION OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Alexander O'Brian Williams pled guilty pursuant to a written plea
agreement to two counts of distribution of crack cocaine, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (2000). Williams was sentenced to 223 months
imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. In these consoli-
dated appeals, Williams challenges the district court's denial of his
motions to withdraw his guilty plea and to appoint an expert voice
identification witness. Williams has also filed a supplemental pro se
brief in which he claims that his due process rights were violated. 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). Williams must present a "fair and just" reason for
withdrawing his guilty plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e);
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.
Next, Williams challenges the district court's denial of his motion
to appoint a voice identification expert to examine the tape recording
of the transaction underlying count 2 of the indictment. To show
reversible error in a district court's refusal to appoint an expert pursu-
ant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e) (2000), Williams must demonstrate that
the court's refusal was prejudicial to his defense.
United States v. Per-
rera, 842 F.2d 73, 77 (4th Cir. 1988). In light of his valid guilty plea,
we find that Williams cannot establish that the denial of his motion
was prejudicial to his defense.
2

-- 3 of 4 --

Finally, Williams alleges that referral of his case for federal rather
than state prosecution violated his due process rights. This claim,
however, is meritless.
United States v. Carter, 953 F.2d 1449, 1461-
62 (5th Cir. 1992).
Accordingly, we grant Williams' motion to file a supplemental pro
se brief and affirm his 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
3

-- 4 of 4 --