* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-10508 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff - Appellee

v. ROGELIO RAMIREZ-MENDOZA

Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:00-CR-232-1

-------------------- January 15, 2002 Before KING, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Rogelio Ramirez-Mendoza appeals the district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw his guilty plea to a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ramirez-Mendoza contends that the district court applied an erroneous standard and abused its discretion. Ramirez-Mendoza asserts that the district court focused on his actual innocence and on the validity of documents that he provided in support of his contention that he had discovered a defense to the 8 U.S.C. § 1326 prosecution after entry of the plea. Ramirez-Mendoza contends that the United States v. Carr ,No. 01-10508 -2- 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984), factors weigh in favor of granting the motion to withdraw. The district court may grant a motion to withdraw a plea filed prior to sentencing if the defendant shows “any fair and just reason.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e). We review the district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a plea for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Brewster , 137 F.3d 853, 857 (5th Cir. 1998). In its evaluation of a motion to withdraw a plea, the district court should consider the defendant’s assertion of innocence; the prejudice to the Government; the defendant’s delay in filing the motion; the inconvenience to the court; the close assistance of counsel; the knowing and voluntary nature of the plea; and the potential waste of judicial resources. Id. (citing
Carr , 740 F.2d at 343-44). The absence of express findings on each factor does not establish an abuse of discretion. United States v. Badger , 925 F.2d 101, 104 (5th Cir. 1991). No single factor or combination mandates a particular result; the decision is based on the totality of the circumstances. Id. A claim of innocence does not alone warrant the withdrawal of a guilty plea.
Carr , 740 F.2d at 344. Ramirez-Mendoza based his claim of innocence and his assertion that his plea was unknowing and involuntary on the strength of his potential defense to the 8 U.S.C. § 1326 offense. The district court did not apply an erroneous standard by evaluating the viability of Ramirez-Mendoza’s asserted defense.
See Carr , 740 F.2d at 343-47. The district court’s findings areNo. 01-10508 -3- supported by the record and are not clearly erroneous. Millard v. Lynaugh , 810 F.2d 1403, 1406 (5th Cir. 1987). RamirezMendoza’s belief that he had obtained consent to reapply for admission to the United States is not a defense recognized by law. United States v. Asibor , 109 F.3d 1023, 1036 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ramirez-Mendoza’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea. Badger , 925 F.2d at 104; Carr , 740 F.2d at 343-44. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.