United States v. Antron Miles

Case: 17-15060 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-15060
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-00005-LJA-TQL-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ANTRON MILES,
a.k.a. Bird,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(February 20, 2019)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, and WILSON, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-15060 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 2 of 8
Anton Miles pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, cocaine, cocaine base, marijuana, and heroin in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), 841(b)(1)(B)(i), 841(b)(1)(C), and
841(b)(1)(D). He was sentenced to 360 months imprisonment. He now appeals,
claiming the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw
his guilty plea and in denying him an evidentiary hearing.
I.
Miles and twenty co-defendants were indicted for multiple narcotics
offenses. Following the indictment the government filed a sentencing
enhancement information in accordance with 21 U.S.C. § 851(a) notifying Miles
that he faced a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment due to his five
prior felony drug convictions. Miles then pleaded guilty. He admitted that, while
he was incarcerated in a Georgia state facility, law enforcement intercepted
hundreds of calls coordinating drug transactions on his contraband phone. The
parties stipulated that he should be held accountable for more than four and half
kilograms of methamphetamine.1
In exchange for Miles’ guilty plea, the government agreed to withdraw this
initial enhancement information and file a new enhancement information with a
1
Miles’ plea agreement also contained an appeal waiver, but the government does not
seek to enforce the waiver because Miles appeals only the denial of his motion to withdraw his
guilty plea.
2
Case: 17-15060 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 3 of 8
mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years. The government agreed that if
Miles cooperated truthfully and completely, including by “providing truthful
testimony” at any proceeding that resulted from his cooperation, the government
would “make the extent of [Miles’] cooperation known to the sentencing court.”
The government also agreed to consider whether any cooperation warranted a
motion for a downward departure. The plea agreement stipulated that the
determination of whether Miles had provided substantial assistance rested “solely
with the government.”
In March 2017 the court held a change of plea hearing. At the hearing, the
court confirmed that no medication, mental health issue, alcohol, or drugs were
impacting Miles’ ability to understand the proceedings; that nobody had attempted
to force him into pleading guilty and he was doing so of his own free will; and that
he had reviewed the indictment against him. The court informed Miles of the
rights he would be waiving by pleading guilty and confirmed that he understood
and wished to waive them. The government outlined the elements of the offense
and the facts in the plea agreement, and Miles confirmed that he understood the
elements and that the facts were accurate. Miles confirmed that he had the
opportunity to read the plea agreement and discuss it with his attorney, understood
its terms, and had no questions about it. He confirmed that he understood that if he
received a more severe sentence than expected he would not be able to withdraw
3
Case: 17-15060 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 4 of 8
his guilty plea. The court then accepted the plea after finding that Miles
understood the charges against him and the consequences of pleading guilty.
In August 2017 Miles moved to withdraw his guilty plea. Following his
guilty plea, Miles had agreed to testify against a co-defendant. Miles contended
that after the co-defendant learned that Miles would be testifying against him, the
co-defendant pleaded guilty. Miles also contended that he provided the
government information about a third party who had contacted Miles in an attempt
to make a large drug purchase. He argued that the government’s failure to
recommend a downward departure based on this cooperation violated the plea
agreement. He also claimed that he was not responsible for over four and a half
kilograms of methamphetamine because some of the drugs were sham
methamphetamine.
The district court denied Miles’ motion. It found that Miles had understood
that the determination of whether he had provided substantial assistance would be
made solely in the government’s discretion and that Miles had admitted in his
change of plea hearing that he was responsible for more than four and a half
kilograms of methamphetamine. Miles then filed a reply and amendment to his
motion to withdraw his plea, asking for an evidentiary hearing. Shortly after filing
his amended motion, Miles appeared at a previously scheduled sentencing hearing.
At that hearing the court ruled that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary and
4
Case: 17-15060 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 5 of 8
denied Miles’ amended motion, but gave him additional time to file objections to
the Presentence Investigation Report. The government then moved to withdraw its
initial sentencing enhancement information requiring a mandatory life sentence
and to replace it with an enhancement information requiring a twenty-year
mandatory minimum. But the government did not move for a downward
departure. At a later sentencing hearing the court adopted the PSR over Miles’
objections and determined that his offense level was 43, his criminal history
category was III, and his advisory sentence was life imprisonment. The court
varied downward and imposed a sentence of thirty years. This is Miles’ appeal.
II.
Miles first contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty
plea only for abuse of discretion. United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187
(11th Cir. 1994). A defendant may withdraw his guilty plea after the court accepts
the plea, but before it imposes a sentence if he can show that the request is for a
fair and just reason. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).
In determining whether the defendant has shown a fair and just reason to
withdraw, the district court may consider the totality of the circumstances
surrounding the plea, including: “(1) whether close assistance of counsel was
available; (2) whether the plea was knowing and voluntary; (3) whether judicial
5
Case: 17-15060 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 6 of 8
resources would be conserved; and (4) whether the government would be
prejudiced if the defendant were allowed to withdraw his plea.” United States v.
Buckles, 843 F.2d 469, 471–72 (11th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted).
Miles does not directly address any of these considerations and the district
court did not abuse its discretion in holding that consideration of these factors
counsels against granting Miles’ motion. It is clear that his plea was knowing and
voluntary because the district court was careful to ensure that Miles’ plea was free
from coercion, that he understood the nature of the charges against him, and that he
understood the terms of his plea agreement and the consequences of his plea. And
Miles has not argued that he did not have close assistance of counsel, that the
withdrawal of his guilty plea would conserve judicial resources, or that withdrawal
of his guilty plea would not prejudice the government.
Miles’ primary argument is that the district court abused its discretion in
failing to find that the government violated the terms of the plea agreement by not
moving for a reduced sentence based on his cooperation. But Miles testified that
he understood that the determination of whether he provided substantial assistance
meriting such a motion was solely at the government’s discretion. His argument
that the government violated the terms of the plea agreement by not
acknowledging the testimony he was willing to give against his co-defendant is
6
Case: 17-15060 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 7 of 8
also unpersuasive because the government was only required to inform the court of
such assistance if he actually testified.
Finally, Miles argues in passing that he should be able to withdraw his plea
because he was not responsible for over four and half kilograms of
methamphetamine because some of the drugs in question were fake. But Miles
admitted at his change of plea hearing that he was responsible for more than four
and half kilograms. “There is a strong presumption that the statements made
during the colloquy are true,” Medlock, 12 F.3d at 187, and Miles has not rebutted
that presumption. So we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in
declining to grant Miles’ motion to withdraw his plea.
III.
Miles also contends that the district court erred in denying him an
evidentiary hearing. A district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing
regarding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is reviewed only for abuse of
discretion. United States v. Stitzer, 785 F.2d 1506, 1514 (11th Cir. 1986). We
have held that a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying an
evidentiary hearing when it has conducted thorough Rule 11 inquiries during the
plea hearing. Id.
The district court made extensive Rule 11 inquiries establishing that the plea
was entered voluntarily and knowingly, and Miles did not raise any new factual
7
Case: 17-15060 Date Filed: 02/20/2019 Page: 8 of 8
issues in his amended motion to withdraw his guilty plea. On this record, the court
did not abuse its discretion in choosing not to hold an evidentiary hearing.
AFFIRMED.
8