IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-10391
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL MAXWELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:96-CR-124-A-13
- - - - - - - - - -
November 12, 1997
Before JONES, SMITH, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Maxwell appeals the denial of his motion for leave
to withdraw his guilty plea to the charges of bank theft and
aiding and abetting bank theft. A district court may permit
withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing “if the defendant
shows any fair and just reason.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e). A
district court’s decision regarding plea withdrawal is given
broad discretion and may only be reversed due to an abuse of that
discretion. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 344 (5th Cir.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 97-10391
-2-
1984). The burden is on the defendant to prove that withdrawal
is warranted. Id. Maxwell’s sole justification for withdrawal
of his guilty plea is his assertion that he did know that his
actions were illegal at the time he committed them. However, at
his plea hearing and in the factual resume signed by him, Maxwell
admitted that he committed the offense with the intent to steal.
We conclude that the district court’s ruling was not an abuse of
discretion and Maxwell’s motion was properly denied.
Maxwell further argues that the district court abused its
discretion by summarily denying his motion without conducting an
evidentiary hearing. A district court is not required to conduct
an evidentiary hearing when a motion does not present sufficient
factual issues with adequate support. United States v. Rome, No.
92-2499, at 4-5 (5th Cir. Sept. 7, 1993)(per curiam)
(unpublished)(citing United States v. Fuller, 769 F.2d 1095, 1099
(5th Cir. 1985)). In light of Maxwell’s withdrawal motion and
its lack of evidentiary support, we conclude that the district
court did not abuse its discretion by failing to conduct an
evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED.