United States v. Faizal Sabar ( 2020 )

Case: 19-11006 Document: 00515555782 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/08/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-11006 September 8, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Faizal Sabar, also known as Brian Pimentel,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CR-19-2
Before Haynes, Willett, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Faizal Sabar appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to
commit sex trafficking, asserting that the district court erred in denying his
motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We disagree and affirm.
We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse
of discretion. United States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641, 645 (5th Cir. 2009).
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-11006 Document: 00515555782 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/08/2020
No. 19-11006
And we consider the totality of circumstances, including the seven factors
enumerated in United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343–44 (5th Cir. 1984).
The record supports the district court’s denial of Sabar’s motion
based on its consideration of the Carr factors. In particular, Sabar waited
nearly three months after his guilty plea was entered to file his motion to
withdraw, a fact that weighs against him. See United States v. Thomas, 13 F.3d
151, 153 (5th Cir. 1994). Sabar also received close assistance of counsel, and
his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. See McKnight, 570 F.3d at 646–48;
Carr, 740 F.2d at 345. Finally, the district court was in the “best position to
know the effect that the withdrawal [would have] on its resources.” Carr,
740 F.2d at 345. Accordingly, Sabar has failed to demonstrate that the district
court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Sabar also asserts that the district court should have conducted an
evidentiary hearing on his motion. This, too, is something we review for
abuse of discretion. United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2003).
Although a defendant is not entitled to a hearing, “a hearing is required when
the defendant alleges sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Sabar does not show that
his assertions, if true, would overcome the strong presumption in favor of the
affirmations he made in the plea proceedings. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431
U.S. 63, 74 (1977). Thus, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not
conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Powell, 354 F.3d at 370.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2