IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-51386

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JACKIE TRAMMELL, also known as Jackie Trammel,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:16-CR-82-1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit 

Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jackie Trammell appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiring to 

possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. Trammell was sentenced

to 20 years in accordance with a plea agreement and Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 11(c)(1)(C). He contends that the district court abused its discretion 

by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 

 

* 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

January 30, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-51386 Document: 00514328534 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2018
No. 16-51386

2

The motion to withdraw the plea was based on Trammell’s assertion that 

he was inadequately informed that his potential sentence without the plea

agreement would have been much higher than 20 years. He contended then, 

as he does now, that he thought he would face sentencing as a career offender 

but that the career offender enhancement turned out to be inapplicable to one 

of his prior offenses under United States v. Hinkle, 832 F.3d 569 (5th Cir. 2016), 

which this court decided after Trammell pleaded guilty but before he was 

sentenced. Trammell does not dispute that he faced a statutory mandatory 

minimum sentence of 20 years under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B)(viii).

After a plea is accepted, but before sentencing, a district court may allow 

withdrawal of a guilty plea if “the defendant can show a fair and just reason.” 

FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d)(2)(B). We afford broad discretion to a district court’s 

denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 

339, 344 (5th Cir. 1984). A district court abuses its discretion if it makes an 

error of law or a clearly erroneous factual finding. United States v. McKnight, 

570 F.3d 641, 648-49 (5th Cir. 2009). In evaluating a motion to withdraw a 

guilty plea, a court considers the totality of circumstances, including seven 

traditional factors:

(1) whether or not the defendant has asserted his innocence; 

(2) whether or not the government would suffer prejudice if the 

withdrawal motion were granted; (3) whether or not the defendant 

has delayed in filing his withdrawal motion; (4) whether or not the 

withdrawal would substantially inconvenience the court; 

(5) whether or not close assistance of counsel was available; 

(6) whether or not the original plea was knowing and voluntary; 

and (7) whether or not the withdrawal would waste judicial 

resources.

Carr, 740 F.2d at 343-44. No single factor is determinative. United States v. 

Badger, 925 F.2d 101, 104 (5th Cir. 1991). Trammell had the burden of 

 Case: 16-51386 Document: 00514328534 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2018
No. 16-51386

3

establishing a fair and just reason for withdrawal. See United States v. Powell, 

354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2003).

The district court committed no error of law and did not make any clearly

erroneous factual finding. In particular, we conclude that Trammell had the 

close and adequate assistance of plea counsel and that his plea was knowing 

and voluntary. Trammell was fully informed and aware of the possibility, 

however uncertain, that he might be able to challenge his career offender 

status or that some unforeseeable change in the law might lower his sentencing 

exposure under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines after he pleaded guilty. 

Although his choice was difficult, it was not involuntary. Cf. Bordenkircher v. 

Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978) (noting that the negotiation of pleas inevitably 

and permissibly presents a defendant with difficult choices). Moreover, “a 

voluntary plea of guilty intelligently made in the light of the then applicable 

law does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate . . . 

that the maximum penalty for the crime in question was less than was 

reasonably assumed at the time the plea was entered.” Brady v. United States, 

397 U.S. 742, 757 (1970). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion, and its judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-51386 Document: 00514328534 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/30/2018