United States v. Reed ( 2001 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30054
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MILDRED V. REED, also known as Mickey Reed,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(98-CR-300-4)
_________________________________________________________________
October 15, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mildred V. Reed appeals the district court’s denial of her
motion to withdraw her guilty plea to a charge of misprision of a
felony. Reed contends: she asserted her innocence and did not
delay in filing the motion to withdraw; she did not receive
adequate assistance from counsel prior to, and during
rearraignment; she was pressured to plead guilty; and her plea was
not knowing and voluntary.
The district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Brewster,
137 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 908 (1998).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Factors considered are: whether the defendant asserted her
innocence, delayed in filing the motion, and had close assistance
of counsel; whether the withdrawal would prejudice the Government,
inconvenience the court, and waste judicial resources; and whether
the plea was knowing and voluntary. Id. (citing United States v.
Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S.
1004 (1985)). “No single factor or combination of factors mandates
a particular result.” United States v. Badger, 925 F.2d 101, 104
(5th Cir. 1991). A claim of innocence does not, by itself, warrant
the withdrawal of a guilty plea. Carr, 740 F.2d at 344.
An examination of the record and the above factors
demonstrates that, based on the totality of the circumstances,
Badger, 925 F.2d at 104, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Reed’s motion. Brewster, 137 F.3d at 857.
Reed does not dispute the district court’s findings that withdrawal
of the plea would prejudice the Government, inconvenience the
court, and waste judicial resource. Although Reed blames
bureaucracy, her motion to withdraw the plea occurred seven months
after entry of the plea and five months after new counsel was
appointed. While her claims of assertion of innocence and
ineffective assistance of counsel are not wholly without merit, we
cannot say, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the
district court abused its discretion. Id.
AFFIRMED
2