United States v. Glover , 448 F. App'x 158 ( 2012 )

10-2827
United States v. Glover
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED
ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE
PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST
SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals
2 for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
3 United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of
4 New York, on the 18th day of January, two thousand twelve.
5
6 PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS,
7 Chief Judge,
8 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
9 SUSAN L. CARNEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
14 Appellee,
15
16 -v.- 10-2827
17
18 MAURIEL GLOVER, aka Feet,
19 Defendant-Appellant.
20 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
21
22
23
24 FOR APPELLANT: David J. Wenc, Windsor Locks,
25 Connecticut.
26
1
1 FOR APPELLEES: Marc H. Silverman, Sandra S.
2 Glover, Assistant United States
3 Attorneys, for David B. Fein,
4 United States Attorney for the
5 District of Connecticut, New
6 Haven, Connecticut.
7
8 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District
9 Court for the District of Connecticut (Hall, J.).
10
11 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED
12 AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court be
13 AFFIRMED.
14
15
16 Mauriel Glover appeals from a judgment of conviction,
17 following a guilty plea to one count of conspiring to
18 possess with intent to distribute and to distribute fifty
19 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing cocaine
20 base. Glover argues that the district court erred in
21 denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We assume
22 the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
23 procedural history, and the issues presented for review.
24
25 “A defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty . . . after
26 the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence
27 if . . . the defendant can show a fair and just reason for
28 requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).
29 The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
30 Glover’s motion. See United States v. Schmidt, 373 F.3d
31 100, 102 (2d Cir. 2004) (per curiam).
32
33 Glover argues that his plea was a result of threats and
34 misrepresentations made by the prosecutor and his former
35 defense counsel. These assertions contradict his statements
36 at the plea allocution. A “defendant’s bald statements that
37 simply contradict what he said at his plea allocution are
38 not sufficient grounds to withdraw [his] guilty plea.”
39 United States v. Gonzalez, 647 F.3d 41, 56 (2d Cir. 2011)
40 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted).
41 Furthermore, Glover’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea
42 came nearly two years after he entered it, and he has not
43 asserted his innocence. See United States v. Carreto, 583
44 F.3d 152, 157 (2d Cir. 2009) (listing factors the Court
45 considers in analyzing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea).
46
2
1 Finding no merit in Glover’s remaining arguments, we
2 hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
3
4 FOR THE COURT:
5 CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK
6
3