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 as Rodney Wassem Larson, also known * as Rodney Wassem Mahto, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant - Appellant.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 attemptin g 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 t o withdraw his guilty plea, the district court sentenced him to 151 months imprisonment 1 and three years supervised release. On appe al Mahto argues the court erred in refusingWe re ject the government & s suggestion that this appeal should be dismisse d 2 based on Mahto & s purported waiver of his right to appeal. Cf. U nited 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 discus sed at some length at c hange-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 pleade d guilty, and he felt an overwhelming pressure to plead guilty. We reject Mahto & s argument and affirm. 2
We revi ew for abuse of discretion the district court & s decision to deny Maht o permission to withdraw his plea under Federal Rule of Cr iminal Procedure 32(e), which permits withdrawal of a guilty plea before sentencing up on a showing of “a fair and just reason.” See United States v. Morales , 120 F.3d 744, 747 (8th Cir. 1997).
The dis trict 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 hearin g that couns el had pressured him into pleading guilty, or that he otherwise was unhappy with counsel & s performance at tha t 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 fo r withdra wing plea), cert. denied , 504 U.S. 921 (1992). Even assuming Maht o established a fa

ir 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, 1091-9 2 (8th Cir.) (no error in refusing to allow withdrawal of guilty plea tw o months a fter 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 decision s interpretin gRule 32(e) is not a basis for relief, because we are bound by thes e 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.