The Honorable Patrick A. Conmy, United States District Judge for the District 1

of North Dakota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 97-4208

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the 

Rodney Wassem Mahto, also known * District of North Dakota.

as Rodney Wassem Larson, also known *

as Rodney Wassem Mahto, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: April 7, 1998

 Filed: April 13, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rodney Wassem Mahto pleaded guilty to causing and attempting to cause a child

under age sixteen to engage in a sexual act by threatening and placing the child in fear,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2242(1) and 1153. After refusing to allow Mahto to

withdraw his guilty plea, the district court sentenced him to 151 months imprisonment 1

and three years supervised release. On appeal Mahto argues the court erred in refusing
We reject the government&s suggestion that this appeal should be dismissed

2

based on Mahto&s purported waiver of his right to appeal. Cf. United States v. Greger,

98 F.3d 1080, 1081-82 (8th Cir. 1996) (waiver of right to appeal sentence was knowing

and intelligent where it was included in plea agreement, it was discussed at some length

at change-of-plea hearing, court imposed sentence without objection from defendant,

and court reviewed waiver of right to appeal). 

-2-

to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea, because he presented a fair and just reason to

do so: his relationship with defense counsel was strained at the time Mahto pleaded

guilty, and he felt an overwhelming pressure to plead guilty. We reject Mahto&s

argument and affirm.2

We review for abuse of discretion the district court&s decision to deny Mahto

permission to withdraw his plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e), which

permits withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing upon a showing of “a fair and just

reason.” See United States v. Morales, 120 F.3d 744, 747 (8th Cir. 1997).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding Mahto had failed to

establish a fair and just reason. Mahto did not indicate at the change-of-plea hearing

that counsel had pressured him into pleading guilty, or that he otherwise was unhappy

with counsel&s performance at that time. See United States v. Abdullah, 947 F.2d 306,

312 (8th Cir. 1991) (failure to assert any objections to counsel&s performance at Fed.

R. Crim. P. 11 hearing refutes any claim of ineffective assistance as basis for

withdrawing plea), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 921 (1992). Even assuming Mahto

established a fair and just reason, see id. at 311 (if defendant does not present fair and

just reason, other factors need not be examined), almost three months elapsed between

the guilty plea and Mahto&s request to withdraw it, see United States v. Boone, 869 F.2d

1089, 1091-92 (8th Cir.) (no error in refusing to allow withdrawal of guilty plea two

months after its entry), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 822 (1989), a delay the district court

determined was prejudicial to the government.
-3-

Finally, we note that Mahto&s disagreement with prior Eighth Circuit decisions

interpreting Rule 32(e) is not a basis for relief, because we are bound by these

decisions. See United States v. Prior, 107 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir.) (one Eighth Circuit

panel may not overrule another panel&s decision), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 84 (1997).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.