[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
January 25, 2007
No. 06-13583 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00271-CR-T-24-MAP
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
WILLIE LEE GANT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(January 25, 2007)
Before BLACK, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Lee Gant, a federal prisoner represented by counsel, appeals his
conviction for attempted possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of
cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(ii). On appeal, Gant
argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to
withdraw his plea of guilty and his renewed motion to withdraw his plea of guilty.
Gant claims that in addition to receiving ineffective assistance of counsel at trial
and during the plea colloquy, his attorney coerced or scared him into pleading
guilty on the third day of his trial. Upon review of the record, and upon
consideration of the parties’ briefs, we discern no reversible error.
We will not disturb the district court’s decision to deny a defendant’s motion
to withdraw a guilty plea unless it constitutes an abuse of discretion. United States
v. McCarty, 99 F.3d 383, 385 (11th Cir. 1996) (per curiam). After the district court
accepts the plea and before sentencing, the defendant may withdraw a guilty plea if
“the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed.
R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). The district court should consider the following factors in
determining whether the defendant has met his burden to show a fair and just
reason: “(1) whether close assistance of counsel was available; (2) whether the plea
was knowing and voluntary; (3) whether judicial resources would be conserved;
and (4) whether the government would be prejudiced if the defendant were allowed
to withdraw his plea.” United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469, 472 (11th Cir.
1988) (citation omitted). However, there is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty
2
plea. United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir. 1994). Furthermore,
“[t]here is a strong presumption that the statements made during the [plea]
colloquy are true.” Id.
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to permit Gant
to withdraw his guilty plea. During the trial and at the plea colloquy, the district
court informed Gant of the sentencing procedures and that the court could sentence
him to up to forty years in prison, but not less than the mandatory minimum of five
years. Gant stated under oath at the plea colloquy that he had discussed with his
attorney how the sentencing guidelines might apply to his case but that no one had
made him any promises concerning the sentence that he would receive, that he had
adequate time to confer with his attorney, that his attorney had answered all of his
questions, that he was satisfied with his attorney’s advice and recommendations,
and that there was nothing that his attorney had failed to do. These statements
demonstrate that Gant received close assistance of counsel. During the plea
colloquy, the district court outlined the elements of the charge, explained the rights
Gant relinquished by pleading guilty, and determined that Grant was not coerced
into pleading guilty. By addressing each of the core concerns of Rule 11, the
district court reasonably concluded that Gant’s plea was knowing and voluntary.
Furthermore, while the district court conceded that there was no apparent prejudice
3
to the government in allowing Gant to withdraw his plea, granting his motion
would have unnecessarily depleted judicial resources because a second trial would
have been required. Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying Gant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4