
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zaubralinda Z. FAISON, a/k/a Linda Faison, a/k/a Zaubralind Little, a/k/a Nee Little, a/k/a Zaubra Faison, a/k/a Zaubralinda Zelda Little, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-4371.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2001.
    Decided March 26, 2001.
    
      Theodore Mark Cooperstein, Theodore M. Cooperstein, P.C., Washington, DC, for appellant. Janice McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, NC, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Zaubralinda Faison appeals from her conviction following her guilty plea to embezzlement of public money, 18 U.S.C. § 641 (1994), and conspiracy to defraud the United States government, 18 U.S.C. § 371 (1994), for which she was sentenced to concurrent terms of eighteen months imprisonment. Faison claims that the district court abused its discretion in denying her motions to withdraw her guilty plea and for substitution of counsel.

This court reviews the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Craig, 985 F.2d 175, 178 (4th Cir.1993). Based on the factors set out in United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir.1991), we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying that motion.

This court also reviews the denial of a motion for substitution of counsel for abuse of discretion. United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 288 (4th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1137, 119 S.Ct. 1793, 143 L.Ed.2d 1020 (1999). Our review of the record discloses no abuse of discretion by the district court in denying Faison’s motion for substitution of her court-appointed attorney with privately-retained counsel. See United States v. Mullen, 32 F.3d 891, 895 (4th Cir.1994) (setting forth the factors for review of motions for the appointment of substitute counsel). Accordingly, we affirm Faison’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.  