[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-12611

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:15-cr-00030-CAR-CHW-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

 versus

TERRANCE JEROME CLARKE, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

________________________

(May 16, 2018)

Before TJOFLAT, WILSON, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 17-12611 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 Page: 1 of 4 
2

Terrance Jerome Clarke appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm in 

furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). 

Clarke contends that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion 

to withdraw his guilty plea because it failed to give adequate consideration to his 

testimony, given at a hearing on the motion to withdraw, regarding his ability to 

understand the proceedings.

We review the denial of a request to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2006) (per 

curiam). “There is no abuse of discretion unless the denial is ‘arbitrary or 

unreasonable.’” Id. 

A defendant may withdraw a plea prior to sentencing if he can show a “fair 

and just reason” for the withdrawal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). In determining 

whether the defendant has shown a fair and just reason for withdrawal, the district 

court may consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding the plea, 

including: (1) whether close assistance of counsel was available; (2) whether the 

plea was knowing and voluntary; (3) whether judicial resources would be 

conserved; and (4) whether the government would be prejudiced if the defendant 

were allowed to withdraw the plea. United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469, 471–

72 (11th Cir. 1988). 

Case: 17-12611 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 Page: 2 of 4 
3

“The good faith, credibility and weight of a defendant’s assertions” in 

support of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea are issues for the trial court to decide, 

and there is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea prior to the imposition of a 

sentence. Id. at 471–72. In addition, there is a strong presumption that the 

statements made during a plea colloquy are true. United States v. Medlock, 12 

F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir. 1994). 

In this case, the district court conducted a thorough hearing on Clarke’s 

motion to withdraw his plea. This included a searching review of the transcript of 

the plea-change hearing; testimony from Clarke himself; and testimony from the 

U.S. Probation Officer assigned to the case, who was present in court during the 

plea-change hearing and who interviewed Clarke for approximately thirty minutes 

thereafter. After review of the transcript of this hearing on Clarke’s motion and a 

review of the transcript of the plea-change hearing, we do not find any error in the 

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

Clarke concedes three of the Buckles factors. He disputes only factor (2),

whether the plea was knowing and voluntary. He premises his dispute on a change 

in his prescription medication regimen, alleging that it “influenced his ability to 

understand what was going on in court and the consequences of his actions on the 

date he entered his guilty plea.” But the district court had ample evidence before it 

showing that Clarke was competent and unimpaired during the plea-change 

Case: 17-12611 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 Page: 3 of 4 
4

hearing, including, for example, the probation officer’s testimony that Clarke was 

not impaired and had a normal affect. It is up to the district court to make 

credibility determinations, and we find no error in the district court’s decision to 

credit this testimony. In turn, we find no error in the district court’s finding that 

the plea was knowing and voluntary. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying Clarke’s motion. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 17-12611 Date Filed: 05/16/2018 Page: 4 of 4