FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT J ANUARY 9, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

N o. 06- 1656 6 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- D. C. Docket N o. 06-00010 -CR- RH UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us W IL LYAN TH ON Y O LI VE R, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- - Appe al f ro m the U nit ed

S ta te s D istri ct

Co urt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

(J an ua ry9, 200 8) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, D U BIN A and C A RN E S, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:Ol i v er al s o asser ts that his lawy er w as inexperience d in handling f eder al drugcase s and that 1 Oliver filed objec tions to hi s prese ntence investigation report (“ PSI ”) be cause his lawy er did not do so . B ut O liv e r’ s la

wye r t e sti fi e d th at, be sid e s oth e r lit ig atio n e xpe ri e nc e , he ha d r e pr e se nte d c lie nts in t wo fe de ra l dru gc a se s b e fo re re pr e se nti ngOl ive r. In a dd iti on , th e fi lin gof Ol ive r’ s PSI

and his objections to it occurr ed af ter Oliver had pled guilty in this ca se. We also note that Oliver told the dis tr ict cou rt

that he wa s satis fi e d w ithhis lawye r’ s r e pr e se ntatio n a nd that he ha d n o c omp la int s about his repr esentation. 2 De fendant-Appellant W illy Anthony Oliver appeals his conv iction after ple ad ing gui lty

to co nspi ra cy

to dis tr ibu te and p oss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te m or e than f

ive kil ogr am s of

c oc ai ne and m or e than 10 0 ki log ram s of m ar ij uana , 21 U.S.C. §§ 84 1 a nd 84 6. Ol iv er was sen te nc edto 24 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. No r e v e r s i b l e e rr o r

h a s b e e n s h o w n ; w e a f

f i rm. O liv er c ha lle nge s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of his m oti on t o w ith dr awhis gui lty ple a. A s he arg ue d be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt, O liv er c ont en ds tha t he did

not know ing ly

and v oluntari ly

ple ad gui lty be ca use his law y er

pr ovi de d in ef

fe ct ive as sis tanc e of

c ouns el . O liv er

a sse rt s, a m ong oth er

thi ngs, that hi s law y er

( 1) did not dis cu ss the pos sib ili ty

of r ec ei vin g am an da tor

y m ini m um se nte nc e, ( 2) inf orm ed O liv er that he w oul d r ec ei ve ase nte nc e of le ss than 20 y ears ’ im pr iso nm en t i f O liv er

c oope rate d w iththe gov er nm en t, and ( 3) did

not a tte nd m ee tin gs w ithO liv er

and the gov er

nm en t t o di sc uss O liv er ’ s c oope ratio n. 1 W e re vie wadis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of am oti on t o w ith dr awagui lty ple a fo r ab use of dis cr et ion . U nit ed

S ta te s v. Bu ck le s, 843 F . 2d 4 69, 471 ( 11th C ir . 198 8)3

(“ It is w el l se ttl ed

. . . that the re is no a

bsol ute r igh t t o w ith dr awagui lty ple a pr ior to i m posi tio n of

ase nte nc e. T he de ci sio n to a llo ww ith dr aw al is le ft to the sound discretion of the trial court.”) . Ther efore, “ [t] he district court m ay be rever sed on ly if it s d eci si on is arb it rary or u nr eas on ab le .” Id . A de fe ndant h as the bur de n of e sta bli shi ng a “ fa ir and j ust r ea son” f or w ith dr aw al of

his gui lty

ple a. I d. I n de ci din g w he the r a de fe ndant h as m et thi s burden, “ the district court m ay consider the totalityof the circ um stances sur ro undi ng the ple a, ” inc lud ing the se f ac tor s: “ (1 ) w he the r cl ose a ssi stanc e of co unse l w as a va ila

ble ; ( 2) w he the r the ple a w as kno w ing and v oluntary ; ( 3) w he the r j udi ci al r es our ce s w oul d be c onse rv ed ; and ( 4) w he the r the gov er nm en t would be prej udiced if the defendant we re a llowed to withdrawhis plea.” Id. at 47 1- 72 . “ The ti m in g o f th e [d efen da nt ’s] m ot io n t o wi th dr aw al so de se rv es . . . consideration.” U nited States v. G onzalez-Me rcado, 808 F.2d 796, 801 (11t h Cir. 1987 ). A nd “ the re is a str ong pr es um pti on tha t the state m en ts m ad e dur ing the [p le a] c oll oquy

are tr ue . ” I d. a t 80 0 n. 8. A gui lty ple a is n ot k

now ing and v oluntary

if the de fe ndant d oe s no t r ec ei ve

“ re as ona bly e ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el in co nne ct ionw iththe de ci sio n to pl eadgu il ty.” McCo y

v. Wain wrig ht , 80 4 F .2d11 96 , 11 98 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). To de te rm in e whe th er a d efen da nt ha s b een de ni edeffe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l, we4

co n s i d erth es e t h i n g s : “ Fi rs t , t h e d ef en d an tm u s ts h o w t h at th e c o u n s el ’s pe rf orm an ce f

el l be lowthe thr es hol d le ve l of c om pe te nc e. S ec ond, the de fe ndant m ust sho wthat c ouns el ’ s e rr or s du e to d ef ic ie nt p er fo rm an ce pr ej udi ce d hi s de fe nse suc h th at

the r el ia bil ity of the r es ult is unde rm ine d. ” T af

er o v. W ai nwr ig ht , 79 6 F .2d13 14 , 13 19 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). W e se e no r ev er sib le e rr or in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de nia l of O liv er ’ s m oti on t o w ith dr awhis gui lty

ple a. U nde r the f

ir st p ar t of the Bu ck le s ana ly sis , w e co nc lud e that Oliver r eceived close assistance fr om his lawy er. O liver’ s lawy er testified that he r ev ie w ed

the ple a ag re em en t w ithO liv er “para gr ap h by

para gr ap h. ” A nd the record shows that O liver conferr ed with his lawy er m any tim es during hi s plea hearing -- which lasted ov er 1. 5 hou rs and included recesses called by the district court to allow O liver to confer w ith his law y er - - before answer ing th e district co ur t’s q ue st io ns an d e ve nt ua ll y pl ead in g g ui lt y . W e al so co nc lu de th atOli ve r’s gu il ty ple a was kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry . At Oliver’ s plea hearing, the district court explained to Oliver that he w as charged w ithc onsp ir ac y

to dis tr ibu te and p oss es s w ithint en t t o di str ibu te m or e than f ive kilog ram s of cocaine and m ore than 100 ki logram s of m arij uana and that, if he wa s not in volv ed with these drug quantiti es, then he should no t plead guilt y . Oliver - - te sti fy ing und er

oa th - - re spon de d “ y es ” w he n a ske d by the dis tr ic t c ourt i f heAt his plea hea ring , Oliver told the district court that he re ad his plea a g ree ment “line-by -line 2 and wor d-by -word.” 5 helped to di stribute m ore than five kilogram s of cocaine. In addition, the district co urt t old O liv er that, sub j ec t t o li m ite d e xc ep tio ns d es cr ibe d by the dis tr ic t c ourt, he f ac ed a20- y ear m an dator

y m ini m um se nte nc e, w hic h w as a lso dis cu sse d in Oliver’ s plea agree m ent. A nd Oliver’ s lawy er testified that, before the plea 2 hearing, he discussed with Oliver that Oliver w as fac ing a 20-y ear m andatory m in im um sen te nc e. W e ar e also unpersuaded that th e re m aining Buckles factors supp ort Oliver’ s argum ent. O liver rec eived a com plete plea hearing and an evidentiary hearing on his m otion to withdrawhis gui lty plea; j udicial resources are conserved by de ny ing O liv er ’ s m oti on. A nd, a s th e dis tr ic t c ourt di sc uss ed , the gov er nm en t would be prej udiced if Oliver w ithdrew his m otion . Even though Oliver attem pted to withdraw his gu ilty

plea before he w as sentenced, his codefe ndants h ave been se nte nc ed and n owhave le ss i nc en tiv e to c oope rate w iththe gov er nm en t i n ac as e against Oliver. W e also note that Oliver m oved to withdraw his guiltyplea m ore than th re e m onths a ft er

ple ad ing gui lty . S ee Bu ck le s, 843 F . 2d at 47 4 ( expla ini ng that, in de te rm ini ng the pr ej udi ce to the gov er nm en t, ac ourt m ay

c onsi de r “ the tim e, m one y , and e ff

ort the gov er

nm en t w oul d have to de vot e to r ea sse m bli ng6

w itn es se s and e vid en ce that w er e al low ed to sc atte r af

te r the a cc ep tanc e of

the guilt y plea”). Insum , w e co nc lud e that the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t a buse it s di sc re tio n in d en yin g Ol i v er ’s m o t i o n t o wi t h dra w h i s g u i l t y p l ea . We a ff i rm Ol i v er ’s co nvi ct ion . AFFIRMED.