United States v. Goodley ( 2023 )

Case: 22-50278 Document: 00516634089 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/03/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-50278
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ February 3, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Kior Dejay Goodley,
Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:21-CR-269-1
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Kior Dejay Goodley appeals his conviction for possession with intent
to distribute methamphetamine and possession of a firearm in furtherance of
a drug trafficking crime. He challenges the denial of his motion to withdraw
his guilty plea.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50278 Document: 00516634089 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/03/2023
No. 22-50278
Once a district court accepts a guilty plea, the defendant has no
absolute right to withdraw it. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d); United States v.
Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2003). A district court may grant a motion
to withdraw a guilty plea upon a showing of “a fair and just reason for
requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). The burden
of establishing a fair and just reason for withdrawing a guilty plea rests with
the defendant. Powell, 354 F.3d at 370. This inquiry requires consideration
of the factors set forth in United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir.
1984).
Goodley has not shown that the district court clearly erred by finding
that the Carr factors weigh against withdrawal. United States v. McKnight,
570 F.3d 641, 648-49 (5th Cir. 2009). For this reason, he fails to show that
the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his
guilty plea. Powell, 354 F.3d at 370. Accordingly, the judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
Although the judgment correctly states that Goodley was convicted
under, inter alia, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), the judgment incorrectly
describes an offense as involving “50 grams or more of” actual
methamphetamine. In light of this clerical error, we REMAND the case to
the district court for the limited purpose of correcting the judgment to amend
the nature of the offense for count one. Fed. R. Crim. P. 36.
2