United States v. Richard Maize ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 17 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 11-50373
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:07-cr-00455-DDP-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RICHARD A. MAIZE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 6, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: FISHER, BERZON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Richard Maize appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud
and loan fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371, bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1), and making a
false statement on a tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). He contends that the district
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Maize’s
proffered reasons for withdrawing his plea were not—individually or
collectively—fair and just. An attorney’s “erroneous sentencing prediction . . .
does not entitle a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea,” United States v.
Oliveros-Orosco, 942 F.2d 644, 646 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing United States v.
Garcia, 909 F.2d 1346, 1348 (9th Cir. 1990)), other than in “exceptional
circumstances” where counsel “grossly mischaracterized” the possible sentence.
United States v. Briggs, 623 F.3d 724, 728–29 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing United States
v. Davis, 428 F.3d 802, 805–08 (9th Cir. 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court’s finding that Maize received “good, competent and sound
advice” about his sentencing exposure under various scenarios is supported by the
record. Maize’s counsel did not make a prediction about a likely sentence but
rather identified the applicable sentencing guidelines ranges.
Maize’s “newly discovered” evidence could not “plausibly . . . have
motivated a reasonable person in the defendant’s position to not plead guilty had
he known about the evidence before pleading.” United States v. Showalter, 569
F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing United States v. Garcia, 401 F.3d 1008,
2
1011–12 (9th Cir. 2005)). This evidence had no bearing on Maize’s conviction for
tax fraud, which concerned his failure to report income, however obtained. Even
with respect to the conspiracy and bank fraud counts, the newly discovered
evidence at most corroborated what Maize already knew: that he did not realize
the full extent of the appraisal inflation. A defendant’s “belief that the government
had a weaker case than he originally thought does not constitute a fair and just
reason to withdraw his guilty plea.” Id. at 1156.
Moreover, the newly discovered evidence does not call into question
Maize’s knowledge about the appraisal inflation and other material falsehoods,
such as the false verifications of deposit and straw buyers. Although Maize now
claims that he does not believe these falsehoods to be material, the district court
“could reasonably have chosen to credit [his] declarations made in open court
while under oath during the Rule 11 hearing over his subsequent testimony more
than two years later, especially since [he] knew his likely sentence at that time.”
United States v. Nostratis, 321 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2003).
Maize knew of the “newly discovered” evidence for approximately two
years before moving to set aside his plea. In finding that Maize had failed to
present a fair and just reason, the district court appropriately considered this delay.
See id. at 1211. Although a defendant’s motive to avoid a custodial sentence in
3
seeking to withdraw his guilty plea does not foreclose relief if there is nonetheless
a fair and just reason for it, United States v. McTiernan, 546 F.3d 1160, 1168 (9th
Cir. 2008), no such reason is evident here.
AFFIRMED.
4