IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60384
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HAROLD W. ROBERTS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:00-CR-14-ALL-LN
--------------------
August 14, 2002
Before JONES, SMITH, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harold W. Roberts, Jr., pleaded guilty to one count of
possession of less than 50 kilograms of marijuana with intent to
distribute, and the district court sentenced him to 120 months in
prison and a five-year term of supervised release. Roberts first
argues that his plea was rendered involuntary by his attorney’s
failure to file a motion to suppress, and he contends that the
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-60384
-2-
district court abused its discretion by denying his FED. R. CRIM.
P. 32(e) motion to withdraw his plea.
Roberts has not shown a “fair and just reason” why he should
be allowed to withdraw his plea. FED. R. CRIM. P. 32(e). Rather,
he argues that counsel should have filed a motion to suppress,
and he speculatively asserts that the charges against him would
have been dismissed had counsel done so. Rule 32 was not meant
“to allow a defendant to make a tactical decision to enter a
plea, wait several weeks, and then obtain a withdrawal if he
believes that he made a bad choice in pleading guilty.” United
States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 345 (5th Cir. 1984). Roberts has
not carried his burden of showing that the district court abused
its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. See
United States v. Brewster, 137 F.3d 853, 857-58 (5th Cir. 1998).
Roberts also contends that counsel rendered ineffective
assistance by not filing a motion to suppress. As a general
rule, this court declines to review claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel on direct appeal. United States v. Gibson,
55 F.3d 173, 179 (5th Cir. 1995). Roberts has not shown that his
case presents an exception to this general rule. Accordingly, we
decline to consider his claim of ineffective assistance of
counsel. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
United States v. Roberts
Combined Opinion