United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10310
Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MIGUEL GUAJARDO,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CR-190-1-A
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Miguel Guajardo pleaded guilty to conspiracy, possession
with intent to distribute more than 5000 grams of cocaine, and
distribution of more than 500 grams of cocaine. There was no
plea agreement, but Guajardo stipulated to a factual resume
supporting the plea. Guajardo moved to withdraw his guilty plea,
asserting that he did not speak English and did not understand
the guilty plea proceeding. The district court held a hearing
and denied the motion.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-10310
-2-
Guajardo argues that the district court abused its
discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. In
denying the motion, the district court considered the appropriate
factors set out in United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44
(5th Cir. 1984). The district court found, among other things,
that the plea was knowing and voluntary and that Guajardo had
perjured himself in testifying that the plea documents and
proceedings were not translated fully. If the district court's
factual findings rest upon credibility determinations after an
evidentiary hearing, this court will not substitute its reading
of the evidence for that of the district court. See United
States v. Nixon, 881 F.2d 1305, 1310-12 (5th Cir. 1989). In
light of the district court’s credibility determination, Guajardo
has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea because he made no
showing of a fair and just reason justifying the withdrawal under
Carr. See United States v. Brewster, 137 F.3d 853, 857-58
(5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.