Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-11062/USCOURTS-ca5-15-11062-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Curry
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-11062

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JERRY CURRY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-151-8

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry Leland Curry, Jr., challenges the district court’s denial of his 

motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We accord broad discretion to the district 

court’s decision. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 1984). “[A]

defendant may withdraw a guilty plea after the court has accepted it, but prior 

to sentencing, only if he ‘can show a fair and just reason for requesting the 

withdrawal.’” United States v. Harrison, 777 F.3d 227, 234 (5th Cir. 2015) 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-11062 Document: 00513664632 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/06/2016
No. 15-11062

2

(quoting FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d)(2)(B)). Curry disagrees with the district court’s 

assessment of the Carr factors and points to specific facts in support of his own 

assessment of those factors. We find no abuse of discretion, as Curry has not 

shown that the district court denied the motion based on an error of law or a 

clearly erroneous factual finding. See Harrison, 777 F.3d at 234; Carr, 740 

F.2d at 344.

Curry also challenges his 300-month within-guidelines sentence as 

procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Sentencing challenges raised 

for the first time on appeal are reviewed for plain error. United States v. 

Peltier, 505 F.3d 389, 391 (5th Cir. 2007); see Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 135 (2009). A sentencing court commits procedural error when, inter alia, 

it improperly calculates the advisory guidelines range or fails to consider the 

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Curry 

has not demonstrated any procedural error or, in light of the district court 

statement that it would impose a 300-month sentence even if it erred in its 

guidelines calculation, that the alleged error affected his substantial rights. 

See United States v. Garay, 235 F.3d 230, 232 (5th Cir. 2000); United States v. 

Mondragon-Santiago, 564 F.3d 357, 369 (5th Cir. 2009). Nor has Curry 

rebutted the presumption that his sentence is substantively reasonable. See

United States v. Cooks, 589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-11062 Document: 00513664632 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/06/2016