IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-20639

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JERMAINE COMEAUX,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:14-CR-439-2

Before JONES, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jermaine Comeaux appeals his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to 

commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1343, 1349, 1028A. He contends for the first time on appeal that the district 

court failed to admonish him regarding any mandatory minimum penalty, as 

required by FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(b)(1)(I), thus rendering his guilty plea 

unknowing and involuntary. Because Comeaux failed to raise this Rule 11 

 

* 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 4, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-20639 Document: 00513704774 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/04/2016
No. 15-20639

2

challenge in the district court, we apply a plain-error standard of review. See 

United States v. Reyes, 300 F.3d 555, 558 (5th Cir. 2002). There is no 

mandatory minimum penalty applicable to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 

and the district court properly admonished Comeaux regarding the mandatory 

two-year consecutive sentence for aggravated identity theft. See §§ 1343, 1349, 

1028A. The district court thus did not err, plainly or otherwise, in complying 

with the Rule 11(b)(1)(I) requirement to admonish Comeaux regarding any 

mandatory minimum penalty. See Reyes, 300 F.3d at 558. 

Additionally, Comeaux asserts that the district court erred in denying 

his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We accord broad discretion to the 

district court’s decision to deny such a motion. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 

339, 344 (5th Cir. 1984). “[A] defendant may withdraw a guilty plea after the 

court has accepted it, but prior to sentencing, only if he ‘can show a fair and 

just reason for requesting the withdrawal.’” United States v. Harrison, 777 

F.3d 227, 234 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting FED. R. CRIM. P. 11(d)(2)(B)). In deciding 

whether the defendant has made this showing, a court should consider

whether: the original plea was knowing and voluntary; the defendant has 

delayed in filing his motion to withdraw and has asserted his innocence; close 

assistance of counsel was available to the defendant; and the withdrawal would 

prejudice the Government, substantially inconvenience the court, or waste 

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

Although Comeaux disagrees with the district court’s assessment of the 

Carr factors and points to specific facts in support of his own assessment of 

those factors, we find no abuse of discretion. Comeaux has not shown that the 

district court denied the motion based on an error of law or a clearly erroneous 

factual finding. See Carr, 740 F.2d at 344; Harrison, 777 F.3d at 234. The 

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-20639 Document: 00513704774 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/04/2016