[DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 10 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 2 :1 0- cr-0 00 05 -MEF- W C-1

UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee,
ve rs us CEDRIC WRIGHT, a.k .a. Cedric k Wrig ht , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 5, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andPRYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:

Case: 11-12106 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 1 of 8Afte r pl ead in g g ui lt y , Defen da ntCedric Wrig htap pe al s h is co nv ic ti on s an d

to ta l 2 40 -m on th sen te nc e fo r on e co un t o f co ns pi racy to d is tri bu te crac k c oc ai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 8 46 , andon e co un t o f di st rib ut io n o f
co cai ne an d t he aid in g a ndab et ti ng of h is co -d efen da ntin th e sa m e, in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 2. Onap pe al , W rig htch al le ng es th e d is tri ct
co urt’s: (1) de ni al of h is two m ot io ns to withd raw h is gu il ty ple a; an d (2 ) fai lu re t o ap pl y th e p en al ty pro vi si on s i n 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) as a m en de d b y th e Fai r Sen te nc in g Actof 2 01 0 (“ FSA”) a t s en te nc in g. Aft er re vi ew, we affi rm Wrig ht ’s
co nv ic ti on s, b utva cat e h is sen te nc e an d re m an d fo r res en te nc in g i n l ig htof Dor se y v. Un it edSta te s, 5 67 U.S. __ _, 1 32 S. Ct. 2 32 1 (2 01 2)
. I. MOT IO NS TO W IT HDRAW GUI LTY PLEA Afte r th e d is tri ctco urt h as acce pt eda gu il ty ple a an d b efo re s en te nc in g, t he de fen da ntm ay

withd raw the gu il ty ple a if “ th e d efen da ntcan sh ow a f ai r an d ju st
reas onforreque st in g t he withd rawal .” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 11 (d )(2 )(B) . In de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e d efen da ntha s m ethi s b ur de n, t he di st ric t co urt m ay
co ns id er the to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e p le a, in cl ud in g “ (1 ) whe th er cl os e as si st an ce o f co un se l was av ai labl e; (2) whet he r th e p le a was kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry ; (3 ) whe th er jud ic ia l re so ur ces wou ldbe co ns erv ed ; an d (4 ) whe th er the go ve rn m en t wo ul d b e p reju di cedif t he de fen da ntwere al lo wedto
2 Case: 11-12106 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 2 of 8wit hd raw h is pl ea.” Un it edSta te s v . Buc kl es , 84 3 F .2d46 9, 4 72 (11 th Cir . 19 88 )

(ci ta ti on om it te d) . The d is tri ctco urt d eci de s t he go odfai th , cred ib il it y an d wei gh t du e a d efen da nt ’s ass ert io ns in supp ort o f a m ot io n t o wi th dr aw hi s p le a. Id
. 1 Here, the di st ric t co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Wrig ht ’s two
m ot io ns to withdraw h is gu il ty ple a. The p le a co ll oq uy con du ct edby the 2
m ag is tra te jud ge was t ho ro ug h, an d Wrig htpo in ts to no pro cedur al de fectin it . In ad di ti on , Wrig htdo es no t d is pu te th e d is tri ctco urt’s fi nd in g t ha t Wrig htha d c lo se
as si st an ce o f co un se l i n d eci di ng whethe r to pl eadgu il ty, th athi s d eci si on to do so
was vo lu nt ary an d m ad e wit ho utco erci on , andth atjud ic ia l re so ur ces wou ldbe
co ns erv edby den y in g Wrig ht ’s m ot io ns , th ree o f th e fo urBu ck le s fa ct or s. In st ead , W

rig htco nt en ds th athe sh ou ldha ve be enall owe d t o wi th dr aw hi s gu il ty ple a b ecau se th e g ov ern m en t ad m it te d t o the di st ric t co urt t ha t i t wo ul d n ot
su fferan y pre jud ic e, th e fo urth Bu ck le s fa ct or . Howev er, the di stric t co urt “ ne ed
no t fi ndpre

jud ic e to th e g ov ern m en t b efo re i t ca n d en y a de fen da nt ’s m ot io n t o wit hd raw.” Bu ck le s, 8 43 F.2dat 4 74
.
We r eview the district court’s de nial of a motion to w ithdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of 1 discre t i o n . United States v. Br ehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2006). There is no abuse of discretion unless the denial is arbitrar y and capricious. I d. Fur

ther, there is no abuse of discretion if the court conducte d extensive Rule 11 inquiries befor e acc epting and enter ing the guilty plea. I d.; see F ed. R. Crim. P. 11. Wright’s first motion to withd ra w his guilty plea, filed pro se, was withdrawn befor e the 2 district court could rule upon it and is not part of this appea l. 3 Case: 11-12106 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 3 of 8Mo reo ve r, th e rec or d re fle ct s t ha t Wrig ht ’s reas on s fo r wan ti ng to withd raw

hi s p le a were n ot“ fai r orjus t.” Th e b as is forWrig ht ’s firs t (c ou ns el ed ) m ot io n t o wit hd raw h is gu il ty ple a was th at“ [u ]pon furth er re vi ew of th e d is co ve ry

pro vi de d by the go ve rn m en t i n thi s ca se , [Wrig ht ] no w bel ie ve s h e h as a vi ab le de fen se to th e ch arg es ag ai ns t h im , andde si res a tr ia l b y a jury of hi s p eers .” At a h eari ng on th e m ot io n, Wrig htex pl ai ne d t ha t h is co un se l h adfai le d t o re vi ew di sc ov ery
m at eri al s wi th hi m

an d, wh enWrig htlat er re vi ewedth e d is co ve ry m at eri al s b y hi m se lf, h e fo un d “ a lo t o f m is take s an d l ie s i n i t” an d b ecame con vi nc edth athe ha d avi ab le de fen se . Howev er, Wrigh t d idno t d is pu te th athe rece iv edall of t he go ve rn m en t’s d is co ve ry

m at eri al s p rio r to hi s p le a h eari ng . In fa ct , at t he pl ea he ari ng , Wrig htadm it te d t ha t h is co un se l h adde li ve redco pi es of t he go ve rn m en t’s d is co ve ry

to hi m be fo re the he ari ng an d t ha t h e h adalr eady lo ok ed itov er. Mo reo ve r, th e m ag is tra te jud ge ad journ edth e p le a h eari ng to all ow Wrig htto di sc us s t he di sc ov ery m at eri al s wi th hi s co un se l. 3 The ba si s fo r Wrig ht ’s sec on d (p ro se) m ot io n t o wi th dr aw hi s g ui lt y pl ea
was th at , at t he ti m e o f hi s g ui lty pl ea, h e d idno t kno w hi s s ta tu to ry m an da to ry Specifica lly , at the plea hearing, Wright told the mag istrate judge that he had not revie wed 3 the dis co v ery m at er ials with his counsel, that he had seen things in the discovery materia ls “that might be a problem wi t h th e case ” and that he had not yet discussed them with his counsel. The mag istrate judge then took a one-hour rec ess to allow Wright to confer with his counsel about the discovery materia ls. When the hearing rec onvened, Wright was prepa red to pr ocee d with the plea hearing a nd in fac t pled guilty
. 4 Case: 11-12106 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 4 of 8m in im

um pe na lt y or t ha t h e was waiv in g h is rig htto ap pe al . Howev er, the reco rd be li es Wrig ht ’s cla im . Firs t, the pl ea ag reem en t l is te d the m an da to ry m in im um pr is on term s fo r eac h c ou ntan d c on ta in edth e ap pe al waiv er, an d, dur in g t he pl ea
co ll oq uy, W

rig htadvi se d t he m ag is tra te jud ge th athe un de rs to odth e p le a ag reem en t. See Uni te d S ta te s v . Med lo ck , 12 F.3d18 5, 1 87 (11 th Cir . 19 94 ) (“ The re i s a s tro ng pre su m pt io n t ha t t he st at em en ts m ad e dur in g t he co ll oquy are tru e.”). Fu rth er, dur in g t he pl ea co ll oq uy, the m ag is tra te jud ge advi se d Wrig htof th e st atut ory

m an da to ry

m in im um sen te nc e fo r eac h c ou ntan d re vi ewedth e
subs ta nc e o f th e ap pe al waiv er. Ineach in st an ce, Wrig htin di cat edth athe
un de rs to od
. Und er the cir cu m st an ces , we can no t s ay th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n d en y in g e it he r of Wrig ht ’s m ot io ns to withd raw h is gu il ty ple a. 4 II . FAIR SENTENCI NG ACT InJan uary

20 10 , when Wrig htwas c ha rg ed , a de fen da ntwho was c on vi ct ed Wright also challeng es the district court’s denial o f his pro se motion to remove his 4 appointed counsel in which he alleg ed that his attorney had rende red ineffe ctive assistance of counsel. As with his two motions to withdraw, Wright claimed that his attorney wanted him to plead guilty , did not revie w the g overnme nt’s discovery materia ls with him befor e the plea hearing and did not advise him of the mandatory minimum sentenc es. Be cause the district court denied Wright’s pro se m otion as “pr emature ” and did not develop the record with respe ct t o his ineffe ctive assist ance alleg ations, we decline to co n sider this claim on direc t appea l. See United States v. Be nder, 290 F.3d 1279, 1284 (11th Cir. 2002) (“We will not g ener ally consider claims of ineffe ctive assistance of counsel raised on direc t appea l wher e the district court did not enter tain the claim nor develop a fac tual rec ord.”)
. 5

Case: 11-12106 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 5 of 8of

a 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a) o ffen se in vo lv in g 5 0 g ram s o r m or e o f cra ck co cai ne an d who ha d t wo p rio r fel on y dru g c on vi ct io ns face d ast atut ory m an da to ry

m in im um li fe s en te nc e. See 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(A)(i ii ). On Au gu st3, 2 01 0, b efo re Wrig ht ’s sen te nc in g h adoc cu rred , th e FSA wen t i nt o e ffec t. Aft er the FSA, su ch a d efen da ntface d ast atut ory m an da to ry

min im um pri so n t erm

of o nl y ten y ears . See 2 1 U.S.C. § 84 1( b) (1 )(i ii ). At s en te nc in g, t he di st ric t co urt u se d the Nov em be r 20 10 Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s, wh ic h re fle ct edth e FSA’s ch an ge s, t o c al cu la te Wrig ht ’s bas e o ffen se le ve l o f 26 an d h is in it ia l ad vi so ry gu id el in es ran ge of 1 10 to 13 7 m on th s im pr is on m en t. Ho wev er, wit ho utan y ob jecti onfro m

Wrig ht , th e d is tri ctco urt th enap pl ie d t he ol d m an da to ry m in im um of l ife , rathe r th anth e n ew te n- y ear
m an da to ry

m in im um in 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b ), as am en de d b y th e FSA. As s uc h, t he

5 di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t Wrig ht ’s gu id el in es sen te nc e b ecame life im pr is on m en t, pu rs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.1 (b ). The d is tri ctco urt the n g ran te d t he go ve rn m en t’s
subs ta nt ia l as si st an ce m ot io n, p ur su an t t o U.S.S.G. § 5K1 .1 an d 1 8 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( e), an d i m

po se d 2 40 -m on th co nc urren t s en te nc es oneach co un t.

Be cause Wright did not object in the district court, our revie w is for plain err or. See United 5 States v. Turner , 474 F.3d 1265, 1275 (11th Cir. 2007). To meet this standard, Wright must show: (1) err or; (2) that is plain; and (3) that aff ecte d his substantial rights. I f all three conditions are met, we may exercise our discretion to notice the forf eited err or if (4) the err or seriously aff ects the fairne ss, integrity

or public re putation of judicial proce eding s. I d. at 1276. 6 Case: 11-12106 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 6 of 8The Supr em e Co urt re cen tl y co nc lu de d t ha t t he FSA’s “ m or e le ni en t p en al ty pr ov is io ns ap pl y

to off en de rs who co m

m it te d acrac k c oc ai ne cri m e b efo re Au gu st 3, 2 01 0, b utwere n otsen te nc edun ti l af te r Aug us t 3 .” Dors ey , 56 7 U.S. at__ _, 13 2 S . Ct. at23 26 . There fo re, as th e g ov ern m en t co nc ed es , th e d is tri ctco urt erred by fail in g t o s en te nc e Will ia m s u si ng th e FSA’s t en -y ear m an da to ry m in im um in § 8 41 (b ). Thaterro r is als o p la in . See Un it edSta te s v . Rod rig ue z, 39 8 F .3d

6 12 91 , 12 99 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (“ Alt ho ug h t he erro r was no t ‘pl ai n’ at t he ti m e o f
se nt en ci ng , ‘ whe re the law atth e ti m e o f tr ia l was set tl edan d c le arl y co nt rary to th e la w at t he ti m e o f ap pe al —i t i s en ou gh th atth e err orbe ‘ pl ai n’ at t he ti m e o f ap pe ll at e co ns id erat io n.’” (quo ti ng Jo hn so n v . Uni te d S ta te s, 5 20 U.S. 46 1, 4 68 , 11 7 S . Ct. 1 54 4, 1 54 9 (1 99 7) ). Mo reo ve r, th e err oraffe ct edWrig ht ’s subs tant ia l ri gh ts . See Un it edSta te s v. Be nn et t, 4 72 F.3d82 5, 8 31 -3 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (ex pl ai ni ng th atth e d efen da nt sh ows hi s s ub st an ti al rig ht s wer e aff ect edwhen“ th ere i s a r eas on ab le pro babi li ty th atth ere wo ul d h av e b een a di ffer en t re su ltha d t he re b een no erro r”). When pr op erl y cal cu la te d u si ng th e p os t-F SA te n- y ear m an da to ry min im um , Wrig ht ’s advi so ry gu id el in es ran ge , purs ua ntto U.S.S.G. § 5 G1.1 (c)( 2) , is 12 0 t o 1 37

We do not addre ss whether the appea l waiver in Wright’s plea agree ment applies to his FSA 6 claim because on appea l the gover nment did not seek to enfor ce the appea l waiver with respec t to this claim. Instead, the g overnme nt addre ssed the F SA claim on the merits. 7 Case: 11-12106 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 7 of 8m on th s, wel l-b el ow t he to ta l 2 40 -m on th sen te nc e th e d is tri ctco urt ac tu al ly

im po se d a fte r gr an ti ng a subs ta nt ia l § 5K1 .1 d own wardde pa rtu re. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we affi rm Wrig ht ’s con vi ct io ns , bu t v acat e h is co nc urren t 24 0- m on th sen te nc es an d re m an d fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f res en te nc in g i n l ig ht of Dors ey . AFFIRMED I N PART; VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

8 Case: 11-12106 Date Filed: 10/25/2012 Page: 8 of 8