Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03507/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03507-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Michael Klingner
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3507

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Arkansas.

*

Joseph Michael Klingner, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 14, 2006

Filed: February 21, 2006

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In support of a client’s home loan application, mortgage broker Joseph Michael

Klingner knowingly submitted altered copies of cashiers checks and a fraudulent sale

contract. In exchange for the Government’s agreement to dismiss three counts of

wire fraud, Klingner pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting his clients in

submitting material false statements on a loan application. Almost three months later,

after filing objections to the presentence report, Klingner filed a motion to withdraw

Appellate Case: 05-3507 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2006 Entry ID: 2011728
*

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Arkansas. 

-2-

his guilty plea. The district court*

 denied the motion and sentenced Klingner to twelve

months in prison.

On appeal, Klingner contends he should have been allowed to withdraw his

guilty plea. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(b) permits a district court

to allow withdrawal of a guilty plea after the court has accepted it, but before the

defendant is sentenced, if the defendant shows a fair and just reason for requesting the

withdrawal. See United States v. Austin, 413 F.3d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 2005). In

addition to “any fair and just reason,” courts also consider whether the defendant

asserts his legal innocence to the charge, the length of time between the guilty plea

and the motion to withdraw the plea, and whether the government would be

prejudiced by the withdrawal. Id. If a defendant fails to show a fair and just reason

for withdrawing the plea, the court need not address the remaining considerations. 

Id. We review the district court’s denial of Klingner’s motion to withdraw his plea

for abuse of discretion. Id. 

As a fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea, Klingner alleges he was

denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to perform a

basic pretrial investigation. According to Klingner, his attorney should have

performed a title search on the property to show the federally insured company that

funded the company did not appear on the mortgage title. We disagree. Klingner’s

attorney was given a memorandum of law on the structure of the federally-insured

lender and its entities so no title search was necessary. Klingner next contends his

attorney should have interviewed additional witnesses, but the record does not show

the alleged witnesses could have provided information supporting Klingner’s defense.

Klingner also asserts his attorney’s failure accurately to predict his criminal history

score resulted in his reliance on incorrect information in deciding whether to plead

Appellate Case: 05-3507 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2006 Entry ID: 2011728
-3-

guilty. Because Klingner was informed he faced up to thirty years in prison both in

his written plea agreement and verbally by the district court (far more than his actual

twelve month sentence), any misunderstanding about his criminal history score does

not constitute a fair and just reason to withdraw his plea. United States v. Burney, 75

F.3d 442, 444-45 (8th Cir. 1996). Because Klingner did not show a fair and just reason

for withdrawing his guilty plea, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying plea withdrawal. 

Turning to his sentence, Klingner argues the district court should have granted

him a mitigating role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, which allows a district court

to reduce a defendant’s offense level if the defendant was a minimal or minor

participant in his criminal activity. The defendant has to the burden to show

entitlement to the reduction. United States v. Salvador, 426 F.3d 989, 993 (8th Cir.

2005). Although we review a district court’s interpretation and construction of the

Guidelines de novo, we review a district court’s decision that a defendant does not

qualify for a § 3B1.2 reduction for clear error. United States v. Monk, 312 F.3d 389,

390 (8th Cir. 2002).

Klingner asserts he is entitled to a reduction because he was not the instigator

of the scheme but was merely a conduit who did not personally alter or falsify the

documents. Contrary to his assertion, Klingner personally asked the seller and his

attorney to submit false forms to conceal late payments. The district court agreed with

the PSR’s conclusion that Klingner “greatly facilitated” the offense as general

manager of the mortgage company and that Klingner’s role was “essential” to the

crime’s successful commission. Thus, the district court did not commit clear error

in denying a mitigating role reduction in this case. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-3507 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/21/2006 Entry ID: 2011728