Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30593 Su m m ar yC al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee,

ve r s us L ANC E EV ER S ON , D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he E as t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana N o. 2: 07- C R

- 118- 1

B ef ore SM ITH , G A R Z A , an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: *

L an ce E verson ap pea l s h i s gu i l t y- pl ea convic t i on , argu i n g t h at t h e di st ri ct court abu sed i t s d i scr et i on b y den yi n g, w i t h ou tan evi den t i ary h eari n g, hi s m oUnited States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 9, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30593

2 t i o n t o w i t hdr aw hi s pl e a. A d e c i s i o n no t t o ho l d ahe ar i ng o n am o t i o n t o w i t hdraw i s r evi ew ed f

or abu se of

di scr et i on . Un itedS ta tes v . Po w ell , 354 F. 3d 362, 3 7 0 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). A l t h ou gh a defen da n t i s n ot en t i t l ed t o an evi den t i ary h eari n g on a m ot i on to w i th d ra w , “a h ea ri n g i s req u i red w h en th e d efen d a n t a l l eg es su ff i ci en t fa cts
w h i ch , i f p rov en , w ou l d j u sti fy reli ef. ” I d. (i n tern a lq u ota ti on a n dci tati on om i tt ed). E verson’ s m ot i on w as broug h tun der F ED
. R. C RIM
. P. 11(d) ( 2) , w h i ch perm i t s w i t h draw alaf

t er a pl ea h as been entered an d bef ore sentenci n g i f

t h e defen da n tshow s a “fai r an d j u streason ” b ased on t h e t ot al i t y of t h e ci rcum st an ces. I d. (c i t i ng Un i t ed S t ate s v. Carr , 7 4 0 F .2d 3 3 9 , 3 4 3 -4 4 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 4 )). Abs e ntt h e i n ferences E verson ask s t h e court s t o draw f rom t h e al l e ga t i o ns i n hi s m ot i on, he di d n otof fersuf f i c i entfac t s t o j ust i f

y w i t hdraw alof

t he pl ea; h e presented only a bel ated m ot i on based on t h e vagu e asser t i on of t h e reapp eara n c e o f a p o te n tia l w itn e s s . T h e c o u r t th u s d idn o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n . Po w ell , 354 F. 3d at370. F u rt h er, E verson h as not show n t h at he w ou l d be en t i t l ed to rel i ef un der t h e t ot al i t y of

t h e Carrfa c t o r s . I n e v a lu a tin ga m o tio n to w ith d r a w , n o s in g le Carr fac t o ri s de t e r m i nat ive ; i ns t e ad , t he c o ur t m ak e s i t s de c i s i o n ba s e d o n t he to ta lityo f th e cir c u m s ta n c e s . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. B adger , 925 F. 2d 101, 104 (5th C i r. 19 9 1 ). “T h e ra ti on a l e for all ow i n g a de fen d a n t t o w i th d ra w a g u i l ty p le a is to p e r m it h im to u n d o a p le a th a t w a s u n k n o w in g lym a d e a t t h e tim e it
w as entered. Th e pu rpose i s not to al l ow a d efen da n tto m ak e a tact i caldeci si on t o enter a pl ea, w ai tseveral w eeks, a n d t h en ob t ai n a w i t h draw ali f he beli eves th a t he m a d e a ba d ch oice in plea d i n g g u i l ty. ” Carr , 740 F

. 2d at 345
. B ecau se E verson h as fai l ed to show tha ta n y of t h e Carrfac t o r s fav o r e d wi t hdr awal , t he
r e fu s a l t o h o ld a n e v id e n tia r yh e a r in g , e v e n if e r r o r , w a s th u s a ls o h a r m le s s . S ee Po w ell , 3 5 4 F .3 d a t 3 7 0 -7 1
. T h e j u d g me n to f

c o n v i c t i o n i s A F F I RMED.