IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-41040

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALEJANDRO GLORIA-REYES,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:12-CR-615-7

Before JONES, BENAVIDES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alejandro Gloria-Reyes pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with the 

intent to distribute more than 5 kilograms of cocaine and was sentenced to 130 

months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. He appeals the 

district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Once the district court accepts a defendant’s guilty plea, the defendant 

has no absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea. FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d); 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 17, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-41040 Document: 00512806432 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/17/2014
No. 13-41040

United States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174, 177 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. 

Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 1984). A district court may grant a motion to 

withdraw a guilty plea upon a showing of “a fair and just reason for requesting 

the withdrawal.” FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d)(2)(B). This court reviews the district 

court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. 

Conroy, 567 F.3d at 177.

Seven factors are relevant to the determination: (1) whether the 

defendant asserts his innocence, (2) whether the Government will be 

prejudiced, (3) whether the defendant delayed filing the motion, (4) whether 

withdrawal will “substantially inconvenience” the court, (5) whether the 

defendant had “close assistance” of counsel, (6) whether the plea was knowing 

and voluntary, and (7) whether withdrawing the plea will waste judicial 

resources. Carr, 740 F.2d at 343-44.

Gloria-Reyes argues that the district court abused its discretion in 

denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. He asserts his innocence on 

the basis that he committed the offense under duress due to threats by the 

drug owners, arguing that at the time he entered his plea of guilty, he was 

overwhelmed and scared, and operating under the erroneous belief that 

presenting his claim of duress to a jury would be detrimental and that his claim 

of duress could be explained to the sentencing judge who might allow him to 

be released from custody. He explains that he did not assert his claim of duress 

at the time of his arrest because he was afraid he was being followed by the 

owners of the drugs. He concedes that he admitted knowledge and agreed to 

the factual basis when he pleaded guilty. However, he argues that his 

statements were made in error because he believed that proceeding to trial 

might expose his family to harm, and he asserts that his state of mind was 

adversely affected by these thoughts.

2

 Case: 13-41040 Document: 00512806432 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/17/2014
No. 13-41040

The district court considered the factors set forth in Carr. The court

found that Gloria-Reyes had been represented by a competent and experienced 

attorney throughout the proceedings, that he had never denied that he 

knowingly possessed and transported a significant quantity of cocaine, and 

that his guilty plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. The court noted 

that the first mention of duress was made in Gloria-Reyes’s response to the 

presentence report on January 23, 2013, four months after the plea, in which 

he requested a downward departure, not the withdrawal of the guilty plea. The 

court further noted the contradictory assertions made by Gloria-Reyes on the 

eve of sentencing, first in his letter claiming he committed the offense against 

his will, then in his statement of acceptance of responsibility which 

contradicted his letter, followed by his motion to withdraw his guilty plea

which contradicted his statement of responsibility. The court found GloriaReyes’s reasons for delaying his motion to withdraw, that he was overwhelmed 

and scared, not believable. Noting that the motion to withdraw was filed 45 

months after the offense occurred, the court concluded that “it is not 

unreasonable to believe that the Government would have some difficulty 

preparing a case for trial.” Additionally, the court concluded that the 

withdrawal of Gloria-Reyes’s guilty plea would be an inconvenience to the 

court, explaining that it had a significant criminal docket and that it had 

expected by now to have sentenced Gloria-Reyes, the last of the eight 

defendants in this case.

The totality of the circumstances do not show that the district court 

abused its discretion in denying Gloria-Reyes’s motion to withdraw his guilty 

plea. See Conroy, 567 F.3d at 177-78.

AFFIRMED.

3

 Case: 13-41040 Document: 00512806432 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/17/2014