United States v. Marvin Steele , 582 F. App'x 453 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-50491 Document: 00512780265 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-50491
Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 24, 2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
MARVIN DONALD STEELE,
Defendant-Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:11-CR-449-1
Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Marvin Donald Steele challenges the district court’s decision denying his
motion to withdraw his guilty plea. A defendant may withdraw his plea before
sentencing if he establishes “a fair and just reason for requesting the
withdrawal.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d)(2)(B). Seven factors are relevant to the
determination: (1) whether the defendant asserts his innocence, (2) whether
the Government will be prejudiced, (3) whether the defendant delayed filing
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 13-50491 Document: 00512780265 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2014
No. 13-50491
the motion, (4) whether withdrawal will “substantially inconvenience” the
court, (5) whether the defendant had “close assistance” of counsel, (6) whether
the plea was knowing and voluntary, and (7) whether withdrawing the plea
will waste judicial resources. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th
Cir. 1984). We review the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion.
United States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641, 645 (5th Cir. 2009). The “court
abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly
erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id.
Steele challenges his guilty plea principally by relying on claims that he
did not understand the plea agreement or the plea hearing, that his attorney
coerced him to plead guilty, and that he is innocent. The district court rejected
his testimony regarding these claims as not credible and found that the
evidence of his guilt was “overwhelming.” The court “articulated the
appropriate standard” under Carr and “carefully applied this standard to the
facts.” United States v. Bounds, 943 F.2d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1991). As in
Bounds, Steele relies on “conclusory allegations that are clearly refuted by the
record.” Id. We find no abuse of discretion, as he has not shown that the
district court denied the motion based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous
factual finding. See McKnight, 570 F.3d at 645.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2