Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01328/USCOURTS-ca8-05-01328-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Thomas Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-1328

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* District of Nebraska.

Thomas Wilson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: September 15, 2005

 Filed: October 4, 2005 

___________

Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Wilson appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute five

kilograms or more of a mixture or substance containing cocaine, entered after the

district court1

 denied Wilson’s initial and amended motions to withdraw his guilty

plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d). Wilson filed his initial motion

to withdraw, without supporting reasons, under Rule 11(d)(1), which provides: “A

defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty . . . (1) before the court accepts the plea, for

Appellate Case: 05-1328 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2005 Entry ID: 1959291
2

The government’s brief urged that Wilson’s waiver extended to the provisions

of Rule 11(d)(2)(B) but on oral argument did not urge that contention in light of

Morales. We need not decide that issue. 

-2-

any reason or no reason.” The district court correctly concluded that Wilson

knowingly and voluntarily waived this right. At his Rule 11 hearing, the district court

explained to Wilson that to remain free until sentencing, he had to give up his

otherwise “unconditional right to withdraw [his] plea,” and Wilson agreed. See

United States v. Stricklin, 342 F.3d 849, 850 (8th Cir. 2003) (affirming conviction

based on waiver of Rule 11 right to withdraw guilty plea). 

Wilson then filed an amended motion to withdraw based on new information

that he argued would permit him to impeach two incriminating witness proffers in the

government’s case file. Under Rule 11(d)(2)(B): “A defendant may withdraw a plea

of guilty . . . (2) after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if: .

. . (B) the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.”

Wilson did not offer a fair and just reason to withdraw his guilty plea, particularly

where the factual basis recited by the government at the Rule 11 hearing and

acknowledged by Wilson to reflect his participation in the conspiracy, did not include

the disputed proffer testimony. See United States v. Morales, 120 F.3d 744, 748 (8th

Cir. 1997) (“[M]iscalculat[ing] the strength of the government’s case . . . . is not . .

. a ‘fair and just reason’ for withdrawal of a guilty plea . . . .”).2

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-1328 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2005 Entry ID: 1959291