Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02687/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02687-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christopher Plooster
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 06-2687

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Christopher Plooster,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the 

Northern District of Iowa.

[UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: April 9, 2007

 Filed: April 13, 2007

________________

Before MELLOY, BOWMAN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

________________

PER CURIAM.

Christopher Plooster appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his motion to

withdraw his guilty plea. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Plooster pled guilty to

conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of

a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, 860, possession with intent to

Appellate Case: 06-2687 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/13/2007 Entry ID: 3298475
-2-

distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, in

violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 860, and possession of a firearm in furtherance

of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The plea

agreement specifically acknowledged that Plooster was subject to enhanced penalties

under 21 U.S.C. § 851. 

Nearly nine months after entering his guilty plea but before he was sentenced,

Plooster filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 11(d), based on the following reasons: (1) his attorney ineffectively

represented him in a number of respects; (2) the attorney-client relationship between

Plooster and his attorney had broken down prior to his guilty plea; and (3) he was not

aware that a notice of an enhanced sentence, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, had been

filed against him until after he had pled guilty. The district court held a hearing and

denied the motion in a 21-page order. Plooster argues that the district court abused

its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 

We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of

discretion. United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826 (8th Cir. 2006).

Pursuant to Rule 11(d), a guilty plea may be withdrawn before sentencing if the

defendant can show a “fair and just reason” for doing so. Fed. R. Crim. P.

11(d)(2)(B); United States v. Mugan, 441 F.3d 622, 630-31 (8th Cir. 2006), cert.

denied, --- U.S. ---, 127 S. Ct. 191 (2006). “While the standard is liberal, the

defendant has no automatic right to withdraw a plea.” Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d

at 826. Having carefully reviewed the record, the applicable legal authorities and the

thorough and well-reasoned order of the district court, we agree with the district court

that Plooster did not establish a “fair and just reason” for withdrawing his guilty plea.

Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision and affirm

its judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2687 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/13/2007 Entry ID: 3298475