IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-20502

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

WADE HAMPTON BIGELOW, also known as Ray Ford Gore,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-160-1

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:*

Wade Hampton Bigelow pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting possession 

with the intent to distribute five kilograms of cocaine and was sentenced to 192 

months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. He appeals the 

district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

The district court carefully considered each of the factors set forth in 

United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343–44 (5th Cir. 1984), to determine that 

 

* 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

September 18, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-20502 Document: 00513199020 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/18/2015
No. 14-20502

2

Bigelow had not demonstrated a fair and just reason for withdrawing a guilty 

plea. The district court noted that Bigelow had asserted his innocence based 

on his belief that he had a valid defense, but stated that the mere assertion of 

innocence was insufficient to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea. The district 

court also determined that there had been considerable delay by Bigelow, who 

did not seek to withdraw his plea until after the sentencing date had been set, 

after the preparation of the PSR, and after Bigelow’s supervised release had 

been revoked in a separate proceeding. Noting that Attorney Davis had met 

with Bigelow numerous times, had filed numerous motions on Bigelow’s behalf, 

had sought the determination of Bigelow’s competency, and had been diligent 

in exploring the facts of the offense and Bigelow’s mental state, the district 

court concluded that Bigelow had close assistance of counsel throughout the 

proceedings. Based on the Assistant U.S. Attorney’s representations, the 

district court found that the Government would suffer some prejudice if the 

plea were withdrawn. The court also determined that there would be some 

inconvenience to the court and a waste of judicial resources, but that these 

factors were not substantial. 

Bigelow’s primary argument was that his plea was not knowing and 

voluntary because his “psychological and mental health problems, and his 

medications, affected his ability to consult with his lawyer and his 

understanding of the case.” Reviewing the plea colloquy and noting that he 

was examined by two mental health professionals, both of whom determined 

that he was competent to consult with his lawyer and to understand the court 

proceedings, the district court found that Bigelow’s plea was knowing and 

voluntary. Based on the totality of the circumstances, the court concluded that 

the motion to withdraw the plea should be denied.

 Case: 14-20502 Document: 00513199020 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/18/2015
No. 14-20502

3

We review a district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea 

for abuse of discretion, and “a district court abuses its discretion in denying a 

defendant's motion to withdraw a guilty plea only if the court bases its decision 

on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” United 

States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641, 648–49 (5th Cir. 2009). The totality of the 

circumstances shows that the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying Bigelow’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. 

Conroy, 567 F.3d 174, 177–79 (5th Cir. 2009). The district court’s denial of 

Bigelow’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea is affirmed.

Bigelow also filed a motion for substitution of his appellate counsel. We 

may relieve appointed counsel “upon a showing that there is a conflict of 

interest or other most pressing circumstances or that the interests of justice 

otherwise require relief of counsel.” Fifth Circuit Plan for Representation on 

Appeal Under the Criminal Justice Act, § 5(B); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c). 

Bigelow claims that Attorney Adler should be replaced as appointed counsel 

because he did not comply with Bigelow’s requests to raise certain “core” issues 

on appeal, including an ineffective assistance of counsel claim against Attorney 

Davis, which should not generally be litigated on direct appeal. United States 

v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014), cert. denied sub nom. Aldridge v. 

United States, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014). A counseled appellant does not have the 

right to direct his appeal, or to insist that particular issues are raised. See 

Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751–753 (1983). Nothing indicates that the 

interests of justice require substitution of counsel. Bigelow’s motion for 

substitution of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

 Case: 14-20502 Document: 00513199020 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/18/2015