United States v. Riley

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50180
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ENELL RILEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(SA-01-CR-204-ALL)
_________________________________________________________________
October 9, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Enell Riley appeals his guilty plea conviction of aggravated
assault. He contends the district court erred in denying his
motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Under Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
the district court may grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
before a defendant is sentenced if the defendant shows “any fair
and just reason.” FED R. CRIM. P. 32(e). Of course, there is no
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
absolute right to withdraw the plea. E.g., United States v. Grant,
117 F.3d 788, 789 (5th Cir. 1997). The denial of a Rule 32(e)
motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id.Riley contends: (1) although he admitted to committing the
charged offense, he had an insanity defense; (2) any delay in
filing the motion to withdraw his plea was due to his attorney’s
failure to file it; and (3) the attorney who represented him when
he entered his guilty plea was ineffective. (Riley pleaded guilty
approximately two and one-half months before filing the motion to
withdraw the plea. In the interim, his first attorney was allowed
to withdraw.) Riley’s assertions are not supported by the record.
The district court considered the seven factors set out in
United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir.), cert.
denied, 471 U.S. 1004 (1984), and the district court’s conclusions
with respect to those factors are supported by the record. The
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion
to withdraw. See United States v. Grant, 117 F.3d 788, 789-90 (5th
Cir. 1997); United States v. Thomas, 13 F.3d 151, 153 (5th Cir.
1994); United States v. Rinard, 956 F.2d 85, 88-89 (5th Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED
2