IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-41158

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

DARNELL DWIGHT SMITH, also known as Slick Rick,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-25-4

Before SMITH, DENNIS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Darnell Dwight Smith pleaded guilty to

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine, 

methamphetamine, cocaine base, and marijuana. He also waived his right to 

challenge his conviction and sentence, except that he reserved the right to seek 

review of a sentence in excess of the statutory maximum and of claims of 

ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, Smith argues that the district 

 

* 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

December 10, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-41158 Document: 00515229852 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2019
No. 18-41158

2

court erred by (1) refusing to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea and 

(2) imposing special conditions of supervised release in the written judgment 

that were not pronounced at sentencing.

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

discretion. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 1984). Seven 

factors are considered: (1) whether the defendant asserted innocence; 

(2) whether withdrawal of the plea would prejudice the Government; 

(3) whether the defendant delayed in filing his withdrawal motion; (4) whether 

granting withdrawal would substantially inconvenience the court; (5) whether 

close assistance of counsel was available to the defendant; (6) whether the plea 

was knowing and voluntary; and (7) whether granting withdrawal would waste 

judicial resources. Id. at 343-44. The district court found that each of these 

factors weighed against Smith, and he has identified no error in the court’s 

reasons for doing so. We accordingly find no abuse of discretion. See id. at 344. 

That Smith disagrees with the Carr framework does not alter this result, 

although we note that our affirmance is without prejudice to his right to raise 

a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in a subsequent collateral 

proceeding. See United States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

With respect to Smith’s second claim, the Government has invoked his

appeal waiver. This court enforces appeal waivers that are knowing and 

voluntary and that, by their plain language, apply to the circumstances at 

hand. United States v. Bond, 414 F.3d 542, 544 (5th Cir. 2005). Upon review 

of the record and the plea agreement, we conclude that both conditions are met 

here. See United States v. Higgins, 739 F.3d 733, 737 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding 

that a challenge alleging that a written judgment conflicts with the trial court’s 

oral sentencing pronouncement is encompassed by a sentence appeal waiver).

AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.

 Case: 18-41158 Document: 00515229852 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2019