United States v. Nicholson
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 7811
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Nicholson, a USPS mail carrier, received FECA benefits after a 2001 work injury.
- He falsely reported on EN-1032 that he was not self-employed, later admitting the false statement.
- He was indicted for fraudulently obtaining federal workers' compensation under 18 U.S.C. § 1920.
- At a plea hearing, the court conducted a Rule 11 colloquy and Nicholson pleaded guilty.
- Nicholson later moved to withdraw his plea, arguing lack of knowing/voluntary entry and medication impact; the district court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 11 consequences disclosure | Nicholson | Nicholson | Collateral consequence; no Rule 11 duty to advise |
| Competence inquiry for medicated defendant | Nicholson | Nicholson | Inquiry sufficient; no reversible error |
| Withdrawal of guilty plea standard | Nicholson | Nicholson | District court did not abuse discretion; Moore factors weigh against withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Strieper, 666 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2012) (plain-error standard for Rule 11)
- United States v. Gray, 491 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 2007) (Rule 11 colloquy requirements and direct vs collateral consequences)
- Meyer v. Branker, 506 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2007) (direct consequences vs collateral consequences of a plea)
- Appleby v. Warden, 595 F.3d 532 (4th Cir. 2010) (collateral consequences, including loss of federal benefits, discussed in Rule 11 context)
- United States v. Damon, 191 F.3d 561 (4th Cir. 1999) (medication impact on competence; need for expanded inquiry when red flags arise)
- United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245 (4th Cir. 1991) (nonexclusive Moore factors for withdrawal of guilty plea)
- United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421 (4th Cir. 2000) (standard of review for withdrawal motions)