### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 10742 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
TASHA LASHAUN WILSON , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:15

- CR

- 298

- 1

Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and ELROD and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Tasha Lashaun Wilson appeals her conviction for theft of government

money. She contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying her motion to withdraw her guilty plea. The withdrawal motion, filed
20 months after Wilson pleaded guilty pursuant to a wr itten plea agreement ,

* 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 R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 18, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-10742 Document: 00514435170 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2018No. 17

- 10742

2 was based on her assertion that she was innocent of the charge and that she was coerced by counsel into pleading guilty

. The district court may permit a defendant to withdraw her guilty plea after acceptance of the plea but before s entence is imposed if “the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” F ED

. R. C RIM

. P . 11(d)(2)(B). The denial of a motion to withdraw is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Urias

- Marrufo , 744 F.3d 361, 364 (5th Cir. 2014). “A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id . (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This court considers the following factors to de termine whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the district court should have permitted the defendant to withdraw her plea: (1) whether or not the defendant has asserted [her] innocence; (2) whether or not the government would suffer prejudice i f the withdrawal motion were granted; (3) whether or not the defendant has delayed in filing [her] withdrawal motion; (4) whether or not the withdrawal would substantially inconvenience the court; (5) whether or not close assistance of counsel was availabl e; (6) whether or not the original plea was knowing and voluntary; and (7) whether or not the withdrawal would waste judicial

resources. United States v. Carr , 740 F.2d 339, 343

- 44 (5th Cir. 1984) (internal citations omitted). “No single factor or combina tion of factors mandates a particular result.” United States v. Badger , 925 F.2d 101, 104 (5th Cir 1991). The district court committed no error of law and did not make any clearly erroneous factual finding. In particular, Wilson’s allegation of innocence is not supported by the record evidence, her signed factual resume, or her rearraignment testimony. M ere assertions of innocence without “a substantial supporting record” are insufficient. See United States v. Clark , 931 F.2d 292, Case: 17-10742 Document: 00514435170 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2018No. 17

- 10742

3 295 (5th Cir. 1991)

. Moreover, the extent of the delay in filing the withdrawal motion does not support Carr ’s rationale for allowing the withdrawal of a guilty plea. See 740 F.2d at 345. Wilson’s delay of nearly two years w eighs heavily against her. See, e.g., United States v. Harrison , 777 F.3d 227, 237 (5th Cir. 2015) ; United States v. Gonzalez

- Archuleta , 507 F. App’x 441, 442 (5th Cir. 2013); Carr , 740 F.2d at 345. While Wilson contends that she did not have close assistance with competent counsel, her alle gations are undercut by her testimony at the rearraignment that she was satisfied with counsel’s advice and representation. Wilson’s assertions at her rearraignment that she pleaded guilty knowingly and voluntarily and with satisfactory representation of counsel were made under oath and therefore “carry a strong presumption of verity.” United States

v. McKnight , 570 F.3d 641, 649 (5th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). In light of the totality of the circumstances and analysis of the Carr fac tors, the district court did not abu se its discretion in denying Wilson’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea. See Urias

- Marrufo , 744 F.3d at 364

. AFFRIMED. Case: 17-10742 Document: 00514435170 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/18/2018