IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-31071

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

CHRISTOPHER WHITE,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:13-CR-101-12

Before BARKSDALE, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher White appeals his convictions for conspiring to commit 

healthcare fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347, 1349, and to falsify records 

in a federal investigation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347, 1519. White 

pleaded guilty subject to a written agreement with the Government, accepting 

responsibility for more than $2.2 million in losses to Medicare as a result of his 

 

* 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

August 9, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-31071 Document: 00514109126 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/09/2017
No. 16-31071

2

providing, inter alia, accounting and financial services to companies allowing

them to bill Medicare for medically unnecessary services and equipment. 

Nine months after entering his guilty plea, White moved to withdraw the 

plea because, after reflection, he believed “his behavior was . . . consistent with 

the reasonable hypothesis of innocence to the effect that he did nothing more 

than fulfill his professional responsibilities as an account[ant]”. After White’s

motion was denied, he obtained new counsel and filed a second motion. 

The court denied this motion as well, declining White’s request for a 

hearing and relying primarily on the presumed verity of his original 

admissions at re-arraignment. 

At the subsequent sentencing, the court granted a 30-month downward 

variance, and sentenced White to 48 months’ imprisonment for each count, to 

run concurrently. 

White contends the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to 

withdraw the plea without an evidentiary hearing. Consistent with White’s 

contention, the denial of a motion to withdraw a plea will be reversed only if 

the court abused its broad discretion. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 344 

(5th Cir. 1984). 

White has the burden of establishing a fair and just reason for 

withdrawal. United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2003). Along 

that line, however, “[s]olemn declarations in open court carry a strong 

presumption of verity”. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977). Such 

declarations include White’s “affirmative declarations” of guilt. United States 

v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641, 649 (5th Cir. 2009). 

In ruling on a motion to withdraw, the totality of the circumstances is 

considered, including the Carr factors: 

(1) whether or not the defendant has asserted his innocence; (2) 

whether or not the government would suffer prejudice if the 

 Case: 16-31071 Document: 00514109126 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/09/2017
No. 16-31071

3

withdrawal motion were granted; (3) whether or not the defendant 

has delayed in filing his withdrawal motion; (4) whether or not the 

withdrawal would substantially inconvenience the court; (5) 

whether or not close assistance of counsel was available; (6) 

whether or not the original plea was knowing and voluntary; and 

(7) whether or not the withdrawal would waste judicial resources; 

and, as applicable, the reason why defenses advanced later were 

not proffered at the time of the original pleading, or the reasons 

why a defendant delayed in making his withdrawal motion.

Carr, 740 F.2d at 343–44 (footnotes omitted).

The district court applied the Carr factors in analyzing, and ultimately 

denying, White’s motion to withdraw. On appeal, White fails to show any 

abuse of discretion in the court’s application of the factors.

The court’s decision not to conduct a hearing on the second withdrawal 

motion is likewise reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. 

Harrelson, 705 F.2d 733, 737 (5th Cir. 1983). A hearing is unnecessary unless 

“defendant alleges sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief”. 

United States v. Mergist, 738 F.2d 645, 648 (5th Cir. 1984) (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). The failure to conduct a hearing is subject to 

harmless-error review. Id. 

The court based its denial of the withdrawal motion on the strong 

presumption that White’s admissions in the plea proceedings were true and 

reliable. Although White makes numerous assertions of fact throughout his 

pleadings, he does not identify any particular factual issue that requires 

resolution at a hearing. Further, in the light of the court’s reliance on White’s 

presumptively truthful statements at rearraignment, an evidentiary hearing 

would not have changed the decision. The court did not abuse discretion. See 

id.; see also Blackledge, 431 U.S. at 74.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-31071 Document: 00514109126 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/09/2017