United States v. Anderson

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT September 24, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60072
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CLIFTON ANDERSON, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(2:96-CR-85-ALL-B)
Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Clifton Anderson, Jr., challenges the district court’s denial
of his motion to withdraw his 1996 guilty pleas. Anderson pleaded
guilty to attempted extortion under color of official right, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and to conducting and attempting to
conduct a financial transaction affecting interstate commerce
involving property represented by law enforcement officers to be
proceeds of unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Anderson claims he is entitled to withdraw his pleas “as a
matter of law” because he filed his motion prior to his re-
sentencing (for the third time). Anderson asserts his indictment
was defective because both offenses of conviction did not affect
interstate commerce. He further contends his counsel rendered
ineffective assistance by neglecting to challenge the indictment
and by failing to advise Anderson of an entrapment defense.
Broad discretion is accorded a district court’s decision on a
motion to withdraw; its decision will be reversed only for an abuse
of that discretion. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44
(5th Cir. 1984). A defendant may withdraw a guilty plea after it
has been accepted by the court only upon a showing of “a fair and
just reason for requesting the withdrawal”. FED. R. CRIM. P.
11(d)(2)(B). The defendant has the burden of establishing such
reason. Carr, 740 F.2d at 344. A review of the record shows
Anderson’s guilty pleas were entered freely and voluntarily, with
the assistance of counsel and with full knowledge of the
consequences. Almost eight years have passed since Anderson
pleaded guilty, and he has had two previous opportunities to raise
this issue on appeal. In sum, the totality of the circumstances
shows Anderson has wholly failed to demonstrate a fair and just
reason for withdrawing his guilty pleas. See id. at 343-44.
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS
2