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 written plea agreement, 

 

* 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

April 18, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10742 Document: 00514435170 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2018
No. 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 sentence is imposed if “the defendant 

can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” FED. R. CRIM.

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 determine 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 if 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 available; 

(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 combination 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. Mere 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: 04/18/2018
No. 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 weighs 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 allegations 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

factors, the district court did not abuse 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