FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT March 20, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 14479 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 7 - 2 0 4 1 5 - CR - J EM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s F R E D E R I C K B R A D L E Y N O W E L L , S R ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 20, 2008) B efo re B A R K E T T , M A R C U S an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: F r e de r i c k B r a dl e y N ow e l l , S r . appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on f orm a i l f r aud, 182

U .S .C . § 1 3 4 1 . N o w e ll a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n in denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o w i thd ra w hi s gui l ty pl ea . N ow el l cont ends thathe pres ent ed af a ira n d ju s t r e a s o n f

o rw ith d r a w in g th e g u ilty p le ain th e f o rm o f n e w ly di s c ove r e d e vi de nc e . N ow e l l i m pl i e s tha thi s gui l ty pl e aw a s notknow i ng a nd vol unt a ry be c aus e the qua l i ty of the e vi de nc e a ga i ns thi m w a s m i s r e pr e s e nt e d a nd th e g o v e rn m e n t w ith h e ld in f o rm a tio n c r itic a l to h is d e c is io n to p le a d g u ilty . N o w e ll f u r th e ra lle g e s th a t h e e x p r e s s e d ala c ko f c o n f id e n c e in c o u n s e l. N o w e ll a r gue s tha tj udi c i a l r e s our c e s w oul d notbe w a s t e d i f he w e ntt o tr i a l be c aus e the tr i a l w oul d t a ke onl y thr e e orf ourda y s , a nd tha tthe gove rnm e ntw oul d notbe p rej u d i ced b y an y d el ay b ecau se i t s case w as p ri m ari l y d o cu m en t ary. W e r evi ew for a n abu se of di sc re t i on the di stri ctcourt ’ s deni al of a de f e nda nt ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr a w hi s gui l ty pl e a , a nd the r e i s a n abus e of di s c r e t i on onl y i f the de ni a l i s a rbi tr a ry orunr e a s onabl e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. B r e hm , 442 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 98 (11th C i r. ), ce rt . deni ed, 12 7 S . C t . 45 7 (20 06 ). T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g N o w e ll’s m o tio n to w ith d r a w h is g u ilty p le a . D u r in g h is c h a n g e - o f - p le ah e a r in g , N o w e ll e x p r e s s ly adm i tt ed thathe had eng aged i n the course of cr i m i nal cond uctw i th w hi ch he w as char ged, the di stri ctcourtdet erm i ned thatN ow el l ’ s l at eras se rt i on s of i nn ocence w ere n o tcred i b l e, an d N o w el l p resen t s n o arg u m en tw h y w e sh o u l d rev erse th ese3

det erm i nat i on s on app ea l . In l i gh tof thi s, N ow el l ’ s a l l egat i on s di d n otconst i tut e a f a ira n d ju s t r e a s o n s u c h th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t w a s r e q u ir e d to g r a n t th e m o tio n to w ith d r a w g u ilty p le a . A c c o r d in g ly , N o w e ll’s c o n v ic tio n is AF F I RME D.