UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Wayne JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant, 33 F. App'x 150

OPINION PER CURIAM. William Wayne Johnson pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of aggravated sexual abuse, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 2241(a) (West 2000). Approximately three months after entering his plea of guilty, Johnson moved to withdraw his plea, which the district court denied. Johnson appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We review a district court’s 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).

The defendant has the burden of demonstrating “a fair and just reason” for withdrawal. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(e); Ubakanma, 215 F.3d at 424. A “fair and just reason” is one that challenges the fairness of the guilty plea colloquy conducted pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 (4th Cir.1995). To determine whether a defendant has shown a fair and just reason for withdrawal, a trial court should consider the six factors set out in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.1991). Ubakanma, 215 F.3d at 424.

Although all the factors in Moore must be given appropriate weight, the key to determining whether to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is whether the Rule 11 hearing was properly conducted. Puckett, 61 F.3d at 1099. This court closely scrutinizes the Rule 11 colloquy. An adequate Rule 11 proceeding creates a strong presumption that the guilty plea is binding. United States v. Lambey, 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir.1992). In this case, the district court conducted a thorough Rule 11 inquiry.

In ruling on Johnson’s motion to withdraw his plea, the district court considered each of the Moore factors and concluded that Johnson had failed to show a fair and just reason to allow him to withdraw his plea. Our review of the record convinces us that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion. Accordingly, we affirm Johnson’s conviction and sentence. 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.