[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-12880

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cr-00375-GKS-DAB-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEVEN JUSTIN VILLALONA, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(February 5, 2013)

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Steven Villalona appeals the district court’s denial of his request 

at sentencing to withdraw his guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to possess with 

intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

Case: 12-12880 Date Filed: 02/05/2013 Page: 1 of 6 
2

§§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(ii)(II), and 846, and one count of aiding and abetting the 

possession of a firearm during and in relation to a drug-trafficking crime, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 2. On appeal, Villalona argues that the 

district court erred by denying his request to withdraw his guilty plea without 

holding an evidentiary hearing. He argues that the record undermines his 

statements at the plea hearing that he was satisfied with his counsel’s services;

rather, he contends that the record suggests that he was deprived of the close 

assistance of counsel, pointing to his counsel’s failure (1) to move to withdraw his 

guilty plea prior to the district court’s acceptance of it, when he would have had an 

absolute right to withdraw, and (2) to communicate with him prior to sentencing. 

He argues that the record is insufficiently developed to determine if his 

communication with his counsel became strained prior to entry of the plea and 

what impact that strain might have had on the entry of his guilty plea. However, 

despite the state of the record, he asserts that it is sufficient to demonstrate that he 

potentially was entitled to withdraw his plea. He asks that the case be remanded 

for the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing.

We review the district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea 

for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 

2006). In reviewing a district court’s denial of such a motion, we will reverse only 

if the district court’s ultimate conclusion is arbitrary or unreasonable. United 

Case: 12-12880 Date Filed: 02/05/2013 Page: 2 of 6 
3

States v. Freixas, 332 F.3d 1314, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003). We must, however, be 

able to determine the basis upon which the district court denied a motion to 

withdraw a guilty plea in order to determine whether its exercise of discretion was 

reasonable. United States v. Pressley, 602 F.2d 709, 711 (5th Cir. 1979). 

Generally, we review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to 

hold an evidentiary hearing. United States v. Arbolaez, 450 F.3d 1283, 1293 (11th 

Cir. 2006); see also United States v. Stitzer, 785 F.2d 1506, 1514 (11th Cir. 1986) 

(reviewing a district court’s decision not to grant an evidentiary hearing on a 

defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea for an abuse of discretion). We

review claims made for the first time on appeal, however, only for plain error. 

United States v. Peters, 403 F.3d 1263, 1270 (11th Cir. 2005). For such claims, we

“may not correct an error the defendant failed to raise in the district court unless 

there is: ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.’” Id. at 

1271 (quoting United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 631, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 1785, 

152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002)). “Even then, we will exercise our discretion to rectify the 

error only if it ‘seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of 

judicial proceedings.’” Id. (quoting Cotton, 535 U.S. at 631, 122 S.Ct. at 1785).

A defendant has an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea before the 

district court accepts it. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(1). After the district court has 

accepted a defendant’s guilty plea, and before sentencing, the defendant may 

Case: 12-12880 Date Filed: 02/05/2013 Page: 3 of 6 
4

withdraw a guilty plea if (1) the district court rejects the plea agreement, or (2) “the 

defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” 

Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(A)-(B). This permissive withdrawal rule is to be liberally 

construed, but, pursuant to it, there is no absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea. 

United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469, 471 (11th Cir. 1988).

In determining whether a defendant has met his burden to show a “fair and 

just reason” to withdraw a plea, a district court may consider the totality of the 

circumstances surrounding the plea, including whether: (1) close assistance of 

counsel was available, (2) the plea was knowing and voluntary, (3) judicial 

resources would be conserved, and (4) the government would be prejudiced if the 

defendant were allowed to withdraw his plea. Id. at 471-72. If a defendant does 

not satisfy the first two prongs of the Buckles analysis, this Court need not “give 

particular attention” to the others. United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d 

796, 801 (11th Cir. 1987). 

“The good faith, credibility and weight of a defendant’s assertions in support 

of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea are issues for the trial court to decide.” 

Brehm, 442 F.3d at 1298 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). There 

is a strong presumption that statements made by a defendant during the plea 

colloquy are true. United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir. 1994). 

Consequently, a defendant bears a heavy burden to show that his statements under 

Case: 12-12880 Date Filed: 02/05/2013 Page: 4 of 6 
5

oath were false. United States v. Rogers, 848 F.2d 166, 168 (11th Cir. 1988). 

Where the colloquy at the plea hearing sufficiently probed the knowingness and 

voluntariness of the guilty plea, a district court does not abuse its discretion by 

declining to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion to withdraw. See Stitzer, 

785 F.2d at 1514. 

At the plea hearing, the district court satisfies its obligation to inquire into 

the knowing and voluntary nature of a guilty plea by addressing three “core” 

concerns: “(1) the guilty plea must be free from coercion; (2) the defendant must 

understand the nature of the charges; and (3) the defendant must know and 

understand the consequences of his guilty plea.” United States v. 

Hernandez-Fraire, 208 F.3d 945, 949 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks

omitted). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, the district court must 

“inform the defendant of his rights relevant to his guilty plea and determine that he 

understands them.” Brehm, 442 F.3d at 1298. Rule 11 gives the district court 

specific obligations that effectuate a knowing and voluntary plea, including the 

obligation to inform the defendant of his right to plead not guilty, his right to 

counsel, his right to jury trial, his rights at trial, his waiver of those rights as a 

result of a plea, the nature of the charges, the minimum and maximum penalties he 

faces as a result of a plea, and any limitation on appealing his conviction or 

Case: 12-12880 Date Filed: 02/05/2013 Page: 5 of 6 
6

sentence that might be contained in his plea agreement. Fed.R.Crim.P. 

11(b)(1)(B)-(N).

We conclude from the record here that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion by denying Villalona’s request at sentencing to withdraw his guilty plea 

because Villalona failed to establish a “fair and just reason” for the withdrawal of 

his plea. Villalona had the close assistance of counsel prior to, and during, his plea 

hearing, and the exhaustive hearing conducted by the magistrate judge established 

that his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Although the record does indicate 

that Villalona had formed the intention to withdraw his plea while he retained the 

absolute right to do so, he failed to act promptly on that intention. Further, because 

the magistrate judge conducted an exhaustive Rule 11 hearing that thoroughly 

probed the knowing and voluntary nature of Villalona’s guilty plea, we conclude 

that the district court did not plainly err, let alone abuse its discretion, by declining 

to hold an evidentiary hearing on his request for withdrawal.

Based on the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the district court’s order 

denying Villalona’s request to withdraw his guilty plea.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-12880 Date Filed: 02/05/2013 Page: 6 of 6