[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-14479 March 20, 2008
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-20415-CR-JEM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
FREDERICK BRADLEY NOWELL, SR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(March 20, 2008)
Before BARKETT, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Frederick Bradley Nowell, Sr. appeals his conviction for mail fraud, 18
U.S.C. § 1341. Nowell argues that the district court abused its discretion in
denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Nowell contends that he presented
a fair and just reason for withdrawing the guilty plea in the form of newly
discovered evidence. Nowell implies that his guilty plea was not knowing and
voluntary because the quality of the evidence against him was misrepresented and
the government withheld information critical to his decision to plead guilty.
Nowell further alleges that he expressed a lack of confidence in counsel. Nowell
argues that judicial resources would not be wasted if he went to trial because the
trial would take only three or four days, and that the government would not be
prejudiced by any delay because its case was primarily documentary.
We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a
defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and there is an abuse of discretion
only if the denial is arbitrary or unreasonable. United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d
1291, 1298 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S.Ct. 457 (2006).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Nowell’s motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. During his change-of-plea hearing, Nowell expressly
admitted that he had engaged in the course of criminal conduct with which he was
charged, the district court determined that Nowell’s later assertions of innocence
were not credible, and Nowell presents no argument why we should reverse these
2
determinations on appeal. In light of this, Nowell’s allegations did not constitute a
fair and just reason such that the district court was required to grant the motion to
withdraw guilty plea. Accordingly, Nowell’s conviction is
AFFIRMED.
3