United States of America v. James Thomas Link

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4742
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES THOMAS LINK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:14-cr-00076-TSE-2)
Submitted: May 28, 2015 Decided: June 17, 2015
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert L. Jenkins, Jr., BYNUM & JENKINS, PLLC, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Jennifer A. Clarke, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
James Thomas Link pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea
agreement, to two counts of brandishing a firearm during a crime
of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii)
(2012). Link subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his plea
with respect to one of these counts. In his motion, Link
alleged that his plea was involuntary because it was premised on
his mistaken belief, based on a conversation with the prosecutor
and defense counsel, that a codefendant would testify against
him if he proceeded to trial. Following an evidentiary hearing,
the district court denied Link’s motion. On appeal, Link argues
that the district court erred in denying his motion. Finding no
error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw
a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v.
Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 383-84 (4th Cir. 2012). After a
district court accepts a guilty plea but before sentencing, a
defendant may withdraw his guilty plea if he “can show a fair
and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(d). A defendant has “no absolute right to withdraw a
guilty plea,” and he “has the burden of showing a fair and just
reason for withdrawal.” United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d
421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000).
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Although we have identified several factors to be
considered in assessing whether the defendant has met his
burden, United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.
1991), a central factor is the knowing and voluntary nature of
the guilty plea. Nicholson, 676 F.3d at 384. “[A] properly
conducted Rule 11 guilty plea colloquy leaves a defendant with a
very limited basis upon which to have his plea
withdrawn.” Nicholson, 676 F.3d at 384 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
With these standards in mind, and having reviewed the
transcripts of the Rule 11 hearing and the hearing on the motion
to withdraw, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in finding that Link failed to show a fair and
just reason to withdraw his plea. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3

-- 3 of 3 --