United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10916

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Leonardo Mendivil, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:19-CR-193-1

Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Leonardo Mendivil appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy 

to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. He challenges the 

district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which we 

review for abuse of discretion. United States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1013 (5th 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 31, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10916 Document: 00515803917 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2021
No. 20-10916

2

Cir. 2019). “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. at 1013-

14 (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted).

In evaluating the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we

consider the totality of circumstances, including: (1) whether the defendant 

asserted his innocence; (2) whether the Government would suffer prejudice; 

(3) whether there was a delay in filing the motion; (4) whether the withdrawal 

would substantially inconvenience the court; (5) whether the defendant had 

close assistance of counsel; (6) whether the guilty plea was knowing and 

voluntary; and (7) whether the withdrawal would result in a waste of judicial 

resources. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984).

The record supports the denial based on the district court’s 

consideration of the Carr factors. Mendivil’s bald assertion of innocence is

insufficient to show that the district court erred in denying his motion. See 

Lord, 915 F.3d at 1014. Nor has he shown that the district court clearly erred 

in finding that his 144-day delay in filing his motion weighed against him. See, 

e.g., United States v. Landreneau, 967 F.3d 443, 450-51 (5th Cir. 2020), cert. 

denied, 2021 WL 666767 (U.S. Feb. 22, 2021) (No. 20-6931). In addition, the 

fact that the case would require a short trial “does not necessitate a finding 

that there is no inconvenience to the district court,” United States v. 

McKnight, 570 F.3d 641, 650 (5th Cir. 2009), and the district court’s finding 

that the withdrawal would result in a waste of judicial resources is entitled to 

deference because the court was “in the best position to know the effect that 

the withdrawal [would have] on its resources,” Carr, 740 F.2d at 345. 

Mendivil concedes that he had close assistance of counsel throughout the 

criminal proceeding. Further, the record supports the district court’s finding 

that Mendivil’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Despite the fact that 

Mendivil took an antihistamine on the date of the rearraignment hearing, the 

district court did not clearly err in finding that he was “cognizant, responsive, 

Case: 20-10916 Document: 00515803917 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2021
No. 20-10916

3

competent, and understanding of the charges and proceedings such that he 

could enter a plea that was both knowing and voluntary” and that his solemn 

declarations in open court carried a strong presumption of verity. See United 

States v. Harrison, 777 F.3d 227, 236 & n.47 (5th Cir. 2015); McKnight, 570 

F.3d at 649. For these reasons, Mendivil has not shown that the district court 

abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See 

Lord, 915 F.3d at 1013-14.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 20-10916 Document: 00515803917 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2021