FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T FEB RUARY 17, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 46 5 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 7 :0 9- cr-0 02 72 -SLB-HGD-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Plai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, vers us FREDRIC K COLE, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Feb ru ary 17 , 20 11 ) Befo re BARKETT, MARCUS an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Fred eri ckCo le was c ha rg edwit h t wo co un ts of d is tri bu ti ng crac k c oc ai ne , in vi ol at io n o f 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) an d (b )(1 )(A). The go ve rn m en t l at er n ot ifi edCo le th atitin te nd edto see k a n e nh an cedsen te nc e, 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 , bas edon

Co le ’s pri orfel on y

dru g c on vi ct io ns . Co le ag reedto pl eadgu il ty to b ot h c ou nt s o f th e in di ct m en t wi th ou t a writ te n p le a ag reem en t. Bef or e en te rin g h is pl ea, Co le si gn eda “ Gui lt y Ple a Adv ic e o f Ri gh ts Cert ifi cat io n” in whi chhe ackno wled ge d tha t h e u nd ers to odhi s rig ht s, the ch arg es ag ai ns t h im , andth e co ns eque nc es of p le ad in g g ui lt y . At th e pl ea co ll oq uy, the di stric t co urt ad vi se d C ol e o f th e ri gh ts he wou ldfor fei t b y pl ead in g g ui lt y

an d i nf orm edhi m

th athe face d aten -y ear m an da to ry m in im um se nt en ce fo r th e fi rs t co un t o f di st rib ut in g c rackan d am an da to ry term of l ife im pr is on m en t o n t he sec on d c ou nt . Col e ag ai n i nd ic at edth athe un de rs to od . Afte r co nf

irming th atCo le un de rs to odth e ch arg es ag ai ns t h im an d was sat is fie d wit h c ou ns el , th e d is tri ctco urt re m in de d h im th athe co ul d wi th dr aw hi s p le a be fo re i t was en te redan d g o t o t ria l. Co le th enpro ceed edto pl eadgu il ty. Two m on th s l at er, Co le m ov edto wit hd raw h is pl ea, arg ui ng th athi s at to rn ey co nv in cedhi m

to pl eadgu il ty andco op erat e wit h t he go ve rn m en t. The di st ric t co urt d en ie d t he m ot io n, fi nd in g tha t Co le ha d t he be ne fitof c ou ns el at t he pl ea co ll oq uy andha d e nt eredth e p le a kno win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y

an d t hu s h adno t sh own a “ fai r an d ju streas on ” to wit hd raw h is pl ea. The pro ba ti on off

ic er ca lc ul at edCo le ’s gu id el in e se nt en ci ng ran ge bu t

2no te d t ha t Co le face d am an da to ry m in im um sen te nc e o f li fe i m

pr is on m en t o n o ne co un t. At s en te nc in g, Co le to ldth e co urt t ha t h e wan te d t o fi re h is lawyer and al le ge d t ha t co un se l h adm is le d h im . The co urt re jecte d C ol e’s cl ai m

an d d ecl in ed to ap po in t n ew co un se l. The co urt t he n q ue st io ne d wh ethe r Co le di sp ut edhi s p rio r co nv ic ti on s t ha t ha d e nh an cedhi s s en te nc e. Co le rep li ed , “ I do n’t kno w no th in g abo utno th ree pr io r fel on ie s.” Th e co urt ad vi se d C ol e th atth ere wer e o nl y two pri oroff

en se s an d d es cri be d t he off

en se s. Co le rep eat edth athe di d n otreca ll th em . Uni te d St at es Pro ba ti on Offic er Ch ris ti e St ewarttes ti fie d t ha t s he ha d o bt ai ne d c ert ifi ed co nv ic ti on s fr om

th e Ci rcu itCo urt o f Tus cal oo sa . The g ov ern m en t i ntro du ced two do cu m en ts , whi ch Ste wartth enadm it te d wer e n otcert ifi edco pi es , con cern in g Co le ’s 19 98 m ari

juan a-p os se ss io n c on vi ct io n a ndhi s 2 00 2 d ru g- po ss es si on co nv ic ti on . The d is tri ctco urt ad m it te d t he do cu m en ts ov er Co le ’s ob jecti on . Bas edon th e g ov ern m en t’s s ub st an ti al -as si st an ce m ot io n, U.S.S.G. § 5K1 .1, whi chpe rm it te d t he co urt t o d is reg ardth e m an da to ry -m in im um sen te nc e, th e co urt se nt en cedCo le to co nc urren t 3 00 m on th term s o f im pr is on m en t. Co le no w ap pe al s, ra is in g t hr ee ar gu m en ts : (1 ) th e d is tri ctco urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n de nyin g h is let te r m ot io n t o wi th dr aw hi s g ui lt y pl ea; (2) th e co urt ab us edit s di sc ret io n i n d en y in g h is m ot io n, m ad e atth e b eg in ni ng of h is sen te nc in g h eari ng , 3to fir e h is att orne y ; an d (3 ) th e d is tri ctco urt cl earl y erre d i n fi nd in g t ha t Co le ha d two pri orfel on y

dru g c on vi ct io ns for

pu rp os es of asen te nc in g e nh an cem en t u nd er 21 U.S.C. § 8 41 (b )(1 )(A). W e ad dr es s ea ch in tu rn . I. W e rev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o wi th dr aw a g ui lt y pl ea pr io r to sen te nc in g fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta te s v. Medlo ck , 12 F.3d18 5, 18 7 (1 1th C ir. 1 99 4) . W e wil l re ve rs e th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on on ly if itwas arb it rary or unr eas on ab le . Uni te d Sta te s v. N aj ja r , 28 3 F .3d13 06 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). The di stric t co urt m ay

pe rm ita de fen da ntto wit hd raw a g ui lt y pl ea b efo re th e co urt i m

po se s a s en te nc e if

th e d efen da nt“ can sh ow a f ai r an d ju streas on for reque st in g t he withd rawal .” Fed . R. Cri m . P. 11 (d )(2 )(B) . The d is tri ctco urt sh ou ldex am in e th e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces su rro un di ng th e p le a whe n de ci di ng whet he r a d efen dantha s s ho wn a “ fai r an d ju streas on ” fo r wit hdrawi ng hi s g ui lt y pl ea, co ns id eri ng fou r fac to rs : “ (1 ) whe th er cl os e as si st an ce o f co un se l was av ai labl e; (2) whet he r th e p le a was kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry ; (3 ) whe th er jud ic ia l re so ur ces wou ldbe co ns erv ed ; an d (4 ) whe th er t he go ve rn m en t wo ul d b e pr ejud ic edif the de fen da ntwere al lo wedto withd raw h is pl ea.” Uni te d Sta te s v. Buc kl es , 84 3 F .2d46 9, 4 71 -7 2 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 8) (in te rn al cit at io n o m it te d) . W he n 4a d efen da ntrece iv es th e cl os e as si st an ce o f co un se l an d e nt ers hi s p le a kno win gl y ,

we ha ve de cl in edto gi ve m uc h wei gh t t o the ot he r fac to rs . Uni te d Sta tes v. Gon za le z-Mer ca do , 80 8 F .2d79 6, 8 01 (11 th Cir . 19 87 ). A defe nd an t wh o m ak es st at em en ts un de r oa th at apl ea co ll oq uy bear s a h eav y bu rd ento de m on st rat e th at th os e st at em en ts were fa ls e. Uni te d Sta tes v. Ro ge rs , 84 8 F .2d16 6, 1 68 (11 th Cir . 19 88 ). Here, t he di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t Co le ha d t he clo se ass is ta nc e o f co un se l i n en te rin g h is pl ea an d t ha t Co le en te redhi s p le a kno win gl y an d v ol un ta ril y . Col e ha s n otsh own th athi s s ta te m en ts at t he pl ea co ll oq uy were fal se . Mor eo ve r, th e co urt’s fi nd in gs reg ard in g t he ot he r fact or s d idno t s ho w th atth e d en ia l o f Co le ’s
m ot io n was anab us e o f di sc ret io n. II. Whe n t he di st ric t co urt co nduc ts anin qu iry int o t he m eri ts of acri m in al de fen da nt ’s m ot io n fo r ne w cou ns el , we rev ie w th e d is tri ctco urt’s ru li ng forab us e of di sc ret io n. Uni te d Sta te s v. C alde ro n , 12 7 F .3d13 14 , 13 43 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ). The rig htto co un se l o f ch oi ce u nd er t he Six th Am en dm en t “ is ci rcu m sc rib edinsev eral im po rta ntres pe ct s” an d i t “ do es no t ex te ndto de fen da nt s who requi re co un se l t o b e ap po in te d fo r th em .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Go nz al ez -Lo pe z , 54 8 U.S. 1 40 , 14 4 (2 00 6) (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . The ri gh t m us t b e b al an ced 5ag ai ns t t he co un te rv ai li ng in te res ts in vo lv in g e ffec ti ve adm in is tra ti on of t he

co urts . Uni te d Sta te s v. K ob li tz , 80 3 F .2d15 23 , 15 28 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). Acco rd in gl y , “ th ere i s n o abs ol ut e an d u nq ua li fie d ri gh t t o c ou ns el of c ho ic e, ev en whe re co un se l i s re ta in ed .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Sil va , 61 1 F .2d78 , 79 (5t h C ir. 19 80 ). 1 To d et erm in e whe th er t he di st ric t co urt ab us edit s d is cret io n i n d en y in g t he
m ot io n, we co ns id er (1 ) th e ti m el in es s o f th e m ot io n, (2 ) th e ad equa cy of t he di st ric t co urt’s i nq ui ry

in to m eri ts of t he m ot io n, an d (3 ) “ whe th er the co nf li ctwas so gre atth atitres ul te d i n ato ta l l ackof c omm un ic at io n b etween th e d efen da nt an d h is co un se l t he reb y

pre ve nt in g an a de qu at e d efen se .” Ca lder on , 12 7 F .3dat 13 43 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Here, al l t hr ee o f th e Ca ld er on fact or s s ho w th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g C ol e’s m ot io n t o fi re h is att orne y at t he be gi nn in g of th e se nt en ci ng he ari ng , as t he m ot io n was no t t im el y , th e d is tri ctco urt co nduc te d a n a de qu at e in qu iry int o t he m eri ts of t he m ot io n, an d t o t he ex te ntan y co nf li ctex is te d, i t d idno t re su ltin a to ta l l ackof c omm un ic at io n b etween Co le

Dec isions handed down by the forme r F ifth Circuit beforethe close of business on 1 September 30, 1981 a

re bindingprec edent in the Ele venth Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 ( 11th Cir. 1981) ( en banc ). 6an d h is att orne y th atpre ve nt edanad equa te de fen se . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ct co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g C ol e’s m ot io n. III.

“ W e rev ie w forcle ar erro r th e d is tri ctco urt’s fa ctua l fi nd in gs rel at edto th e im po si ti on of s en te nc in g e nh an cem en ts . . . .” Uni te d Sta te s v. Ro be rt so n , 49 3 F.3 d 1 32 2, 1 32 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) (qu ot at io ns om it te d) . “ A factua l fi nd in g i s cl earl y erro ne ou s wh enalt ho ug h t he re i s ev id en ce t o s up po rt i t, t he rev ie win g co urt o n t he en ti re ev id en ce i s l eftwit h t he de fin it e an d fi rm co nv ic ti on th ata m is ta ke ha s b een co m

m it te d.” Id
. at 1 33 0 (q uo ta ti on s o m it te d) . Und er 2 1 U.S.C. § 85 1( a), the go ve rn m en t m us t fi le anin fo rm at io n wi th th e co urt an d s erv e a co py onth e d efen da ntbe fo re the de fen da ntcan be sen te nc edto anin crea se d p un is hm en t fo r ha vi ng pri orco nv ic ti on s. 2 1 U.S.C. § 85 1( a). If t he de fen da nt“ de ni es an y

all eg at io n o f th e in fo rm at io n o f pr io r co nv ic ti on . . . he sh al l fil e a wri tt enres po ns e to th e in fo rm at io n.” Id
. § 8 51 (c)( 1) . “ Any chal le ng e to a pr io r co nv ic ti on , no t ra is edby resp on se to th e in fo rm at io n b efo re an in crea se d se nt en ce i s i m

po se d i n re li an ce t he reo n, s ha ll be waiv edun le ss go odcau se be sh own forfai lu re t o m ak e a t im el y ch al le ng e.” Id. § 8 51 (c)( 2) ; Uni te d Sta te s v. Sa nc he z , 13 8 F .3d14 10 , 14 16 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). In a dd it io n, “ [i]f th e d efen da nt fil es no res po ns e to th e in fo rm at io n, o r if th e co urt d et erm in es , aft er h eari ng , th at 7th e p ers on is subjec t t o i nc reas edpu ni sh m en t b y reas onof p rio r co nv ic ti on s, t he co urt s ha ll pro ceedto im

po se sen te nc e upo n h im

as p ro vi de d b y

th is pa rt.” 21 U.S.C. § 8 51 (d )(1 ). Here, Co le ’s fai lu re t o re sp on d t o t he in fo rm at io n fi le d b y th e g ov ern m en t res ul te d i n awaiv er o f hi s ab il it y to ch al le ng e th e co nv ic ti on s d es cri be d t he rei n. Not hi ng in th e rec or d i nd ic at es th atCo le fil eda res po ns e to th e g ov ern m en t’s in fo rm at io n. Th us , pu rs ua ntto § 8 51 (c)( 2) an d (d )(1 ), Co le waiv edhi s ch al le ng es to th e co nv ic ti on s an d c an no t ch al le ng e h is sen te nc e b y co nt en di ng th atth e d is tri ct co urt erredin fin di ng th atCo le ha d t he co nv ic ti on s d es cri be d i n t he in fo rm at io n. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

Co le ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc es . AFFIRMED.

8