FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT FEB RUARY 13, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1644 8 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 05-00003 -CR- HL M-4 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us ROSEMB ERG BERRERA BELTRAN, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - (F eb ru ar y 13 , 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T a nd H U L L , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D ef en dant- Appe llant R ose m be rg Be rr er a Be ltr anappe al s hi s c onvi ct ion sB e ltr an w a s c onvic te d o f t he se sp e c if

ic of fe ns es: (1) con sp ir a c y

to p os se ss w ithint e nt t o 1 dis tr ibute at le a st 5 00 g ra ms o f a mixture of

me thamph eta mi ne; (2 ) p os se ssi on wi th i nte nt t o di st ri bu te at le a st 5 00 g ra ms o f a mixture of

me tha mph e tamin e ; and

(3 ) p os se ssi on

wi th i nte nt t o distribute at least 50 g rams of a mix ture of me thamphetamine.

2 an d 26 2- m onth se nte nc e fo r dr ug o ff en se s invio la tio n of

21 U . S. C. §§ 8 41 and 8 4 6 . N o r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. 1 Be ltr anf

ir st a sse rt s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in de ny ing his m oti on t o w ith dr awhis gui lty

ple a. A cc or din g to Be ltr an , the dis tr ic t c ourt f ai le d to m ak e fa ct ua l f ind ing s to sup port i ts d ec isi on; a nd the gov er nm en t di d no t sh owthat i t wou ld be pre

jud ic edby the wit hd rawal of B el tra n’s g ui lt y pl ea.

“ A dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of ar eque st t o w ith dr awagui lty ple a is g en er al ly re vie w ed f or abuse of dis cr et ion . ” U nit ed

S ta te s v. I zquie rd o, 448 F . 3d 1 269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2006). “ The denial of a m otion to withdrawa guilty plea is not an abuse of discretion unl ess the denial was arbitrary or unreasonable.” Id. (internal quot ation om itted). A def en da nt do es no t h av e an ab so lu te rig ht to wit hd raw a g ui lt y pl ea. United States v. Medlock, 12 F. 3d 18 5, 187 (11th Cir. 1994). B ut a defendant m ay w ith dr awagui lty

ple a if he “ can sh owaf

ai r an d j ust

r ea son fo r re que sti ng the withdraw al.” Fed. R.C rim .P . 11(d)( 2)(B) . In determ ining whether a defe ndant has m et thi s burd en , the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r the se f ac tor s: “ (1 ) w he the r cl ose3

as sis tanc e of

c ouns el w as a va ila

ble ; ( 2) w he the r the ple a w as kno w ing a nd vol unt ar y ; ( 3) w he the r j udi ci al r es our ce s w oul d be c onse rv ed ; and ( 4) w he the r the gove rn m en t w oul d be pr ej udi ce d if the de fe ndant w er e al low ed to w ith dr awhis plea.” U nited States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469, 472 (11t h Cir. 1988 ) (internal ci ta ti on om it te d) . We s ee n o ab u s e o f d i s cr et i o n i n t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s d en i al o f B el t ra n ’s m oti on t o w ith dr awhis gui lty ple a. A t the he ar ing on h is m oti on, Be ltr andid not deny com m itting the offenses to which he pled guilty . Instead Beltran a sserted th athe di sa gr eedwit h b ei ng m ad e to “ lo okli ke a bi g t im e d ru g d eal er, a l ead er, a ch am pio n. ” Be ltr an ’ s law y er

e xpl ai ne d th at , a lth oughBe ltr an“ doe s no t de ny the specific char ges to which he pled guil ty ,” he disagreed w ith ho w the pre sentence in ve st ig at io n re po rt c ha ract eri zedhi s i nv ol ve m en t i n t he dru g t ran sa ct io ns . Beltran has cited no authority to supp ort his content ion th at the district court m ad e ins uf

fi ci en t f ind ing s inde ny ing Be ltr an ’ s m oti on. A nd w e not e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt, w hic h r ev ie w ed m uc h of it s e ar lie r co nve rs at ion s w ithBe ltr anabout the c onse que nc es of

ple ad ing gui lty , e xpl ai ne d th at Be ltr anappe ar ed

to be intellig ent and to un derstand the dist rict court’ s statem ents during the plea co llo quy . I n a ddi tio n, w e ar e unpe rs ua de d th at the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed

in ru lin g on Be ltr an ’ s m oti on w ith out the gov er

nm en t f ir st p re se nti ng e vid en ce on h owitT o th e e xt e n t th at B e l tr an c o n t e n d s th at h e d i d n o t f u l l y un d e r s t an d th e c o n s e qu e nc e s o f h is 2 g uilty plea, we reje ct this argument. Be ltran states that he f elt pressure d by

his lawy er to plea d g uil ty . B ut t

he dis tr ic t c ourt e lic ite d fr om B e ltr an that no on e ha d c oe rc e d h im i nto ple a din gg uil ty and that no on had made pr omises to Beltra n for him to ag ree to plead guilty . In addition, Be ltran informed the district c ourt that he was satisfied with his lawy er’ s repr esentation. W e apply a “strong presumption that the statements made during the [plea] colloquy are true.” Medlock, 12 F .3d at 187. 4 w oul d be pr ej udi ce d by

the w ith dr aw al of

Be ltr an ’ s gu ilty

ple a. S ee I zquie rd o, 448 F. 3d a t 12 76 ( “ A de fe ndant- m ovant c le ar ly ha s th e bur de n onam oti on t o w ith dr awagui lty

ple a. ”) . B el tr ana ga in o ff er s no auth or ity

to supp ort hi s argum ent; and he acknowledges that “ a trial w ould obvio usly invol ve an ex pe nd it ur e o f jud ic ia l re so ur ces .” 2 W e tur n to Be ltr an ’ s c ha lle nge to his se nte nc e. B el tr ana sse rt s th at the district court erre d in calculating hi s adviso ry Guidelines range because the district co ur t i m pr op erl y ap pl ie d a m an ag eri al -ro le en ha nc em en t t o h is off en se lev el . Beltran denies that he w as a m anager and instead contends th at he w as a m ere

“ m iddle-m an” w ho bo ught drugs and th en sold th em to other buy ers. W e re view fo r cl ear e rro r a d is tri ctco ur t’s d et erm in at io n o f a d efen da nt ’s rol e in th e o ffen se . United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). I n d e t e rmi n i n g ad e f

e n d a n t ’s o f

f e n s e l e v e l , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtmay ap p l y a three-level e nhancem ent if the defendant w as a “ m anager or supervisor (but not an or ganiz er or le ad er ) an d th e cr im ina l a ct ivi ty inv olv ed f ive or m or e part ic ipants or w as oth er w ise e xte nsi ve . ” U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1( b) . T o w ar rant a ppl ic at ionof

the5

enhancem ent, the def

endant m ust have acted as a m anager or supervisor over at le as t on e oth er

part ic ipant. S ee U . S. S. G . § 3B 1. 1 c m t. n. 2. A m ong oth er

f ac tor s, the dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r the na tur e of part ic ipa tio n inthe c om

m iss ionof the of fe nse , the na tur e an d sc ope of the il le ga l a ct ivi ty , the de gr ee of part ic ipa tio n in p lanni ng o r or ganiz ing the of fe nse , a nd the de gr ee of

c ontro l and a

uth or ity ex erci se d o ve r ot he rs . U.S.S.G. § 3B 1.1 cmt. n .4. The district court did not clearly err by enhancing Beltran’ s sentence based on h is r ole a s am an ag er

or sup er vis or . B el tr an

doe s no t di sput e tha t the co n s p i ra cy i n t h i s ca s e i n v o l v ed fi v e o r mor e p ar t i ci p an t s ; an dat Be l t ra n ’s se nte nc ing he ar ing , aw itn es s - - w ho t es tif ie d th at he r eg ularl y

bou ght dr ugs fr om Beltran, resold the drugs, and then paid Beltran with proceeds fr om the sale -- stated that Beltran paid other people to deliv er drugs for him . In addition , anoth er witness testified that Beltran introduced him to a person brough t to the United St at es f ro m Me xic o by

Be ltr anto m ak e dr

ug d el ive ri es on B el tr an ’ s be ha lf . I n th e lig ht o f the e vid en ce that B el tr anr ec ru ite d a t l ea st o ne pe rs on t o c ar ry out the of fe nse , w e se e no c le ar

e rr or he re . S ee U nit ed

S ta te s v. N diay e, 434 F . 3d 1 270, 1304 ( 11th C ir . 200 6) ( re

j ec tin g de fe ndant’ s arg um en t tha t he w as onl y a“ co g in the w he el ” be ca

use “ [e ] ve n th oughoth er s m ay ha ve ha d alarg er

r ole in the co nspi ra cy , ” ev ide nc e show ed that de fe ndant r ec ru ite d and i nstru ct ed c o-6

co nspi rator s) ; U nit ed

S ta te s v. Ma tth ew s, 168 F . 3d 1 234, 124 9- 50 ( 11th C ir . 199 9) (e xpl ai nin g th at , in a dr

ug d istri but ionc as e, “ the m an ag em en t e nhanc em en t i s ap pr opr ia te f

or ade fe ndant who arr an ge s dr ug transa ct ion s, ne got ia te s sa le s w ith others, and hires others to work f or the conspiracy ”). W e af firm Beltran’ s convictio ns and sentence. AFFIR MED.