United States v. Eaddy ( 2023 )

Case: 22-10819 Document: 00516747898 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-10819
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ May 11, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jaquan Eaddy,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CR-39-1
______________________________
Before Davis, Smith, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jaquan Eaddy pleaded guilty, with the benefit of a written plea
agreement, to Hobbs Act robbery. He now appeals the district court’s denial
of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
We pretermit whether the instant appeal is barred by the appellate
waiver in Eaddy’s plea agreement, as his appeal fails on the merits. See
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10819 Document: 00516747898 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-10819
United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v.
Smith, 528 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 2008).
Our review of the district court’s denial of Eaddy’s withdrawal motion
is for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1013
(5th Cir. 2019). After the district court accepts a guilty plea, but before it
imposes a sentence, a defendant may withdraw the plea by showing a “fair
and just reason” for seeking withdrawal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).
The district court considers: (1) whether the defendant has asserted his
innocence; (2) whether withdrawal would prejudice the Government;
(3) whether the defendant has delayed in filing his withdrawal motion;
(4) whether withdrawal would substantially inconvenience the court;
(5) whether close assistance of counsel was available; (6) whether the original
plea was knowing and voluntary; and (7) whether withdrawal would waste
judicial resources. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir.
1984).
Eaddy has failed to carry his burden of showing that the district court
abused its discretion in denying his motion based on the totality of the
circumstances. See Lord, 915 F.3d at 1013-14. He contends that he did not
unreasonably delay in filing his withdrawal motion, in which he argued that
the Hobbs Act violated the Commerce Clause, because it was based on two
Supreme Court decisions that were issued shortly before he filed his motion,
N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), and Dobbs
v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022). We are
unpersuaded that his delay was justified, as he has not made a convincing
argument that his withdrawal motion was based on any new legal standard
articulated in Bruen or Dobbs.
We also disagree with Eaddy’s argument that withdrawal would not
substantially inconvenience the court, prejudice the government, or waste
2
Case: 22-10819 Document: 00516747898 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/11/2023
No. 22-10819
judicial resources, and we defer to the district court’s finding that those
factors weigh against withdrawal. See Carr, 740 F.2d at 345; United States v.
Clark, 931 F.2d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 1991). Moreover, as Eaddy concedes, his
guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and the “close assistance of counsel”
factor is at best neutral. Carr, 740 F.2d at 344. Further, even if we were to
agree with the district court’s finding that Eaddy has asserted his factual
innocence, that would be the only Carr factor weighing in favor of
withdrawal. Accordingly, Eaddy has not shown that the district court abused
its discretion in denying his withdrawal motion. See Lord, 915 F.3d at 1013-
14.
AFFIRMED.
3