United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3581

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Arkansas. * Jimmy Franklin Luttrell, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 24, 1997 Filed: June 9, 1997

___________ Before BOWMAN, BRIGHT and BEAM, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Ji mmy Franklin Luttrell pled guilty to one count of possession o f methamphetamine, but attempted to withdraw his plea on the day of sentencing

. Luttrell c laimed that he was intoxicated when he pled guilty and that the Government breached an oral, undisclosed plea agreement. The district court denied his motion

. Luttrell appeals. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND-2-

Luttrell was charged in a three-count indictment and ple d not guilty. Trial began on Nov ember 12, 1995, but after the Government presented its case-in-chief, Luttrell pled guilty to the first two counts and the Government dismissed t he third count. Later, the G overnment dismissed the second count after the Supreme Court’s decision i n Bailey v. United States , 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995).
At the time he entered his guilty plea, Luttrell recounted his participation in the crimes in op en court and under oath. Luttrell also denied consuming any alcoho l recently a nd his defense attorneys stated that they had no reason to doubt Luttrell’ s compet ency. In addition, Luttrell and his counsel denied that an agreement existe d between them and the Government.
On February 29, 1996, the date of sentencing, Luttrell moved to withdraw hi s gui lty plea. Luttrell claimed that the Government breached an unwritten an d undisclosed plea agreement. In addition, he claimed that alcohol an d drug consumption the night before he entered a guilty plea rendered his plea involuntary. The distric t court conducted a thorough hearing, concluded that no plea agreement existed an d denied Luttrell’s motion to withdraw his plea.
II. DISCUSSION Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Proced ure authorizes a district court to grant a motion to withdraw a guilty plea if the defendant shows a fair and jus t reaso n. The district court evaluates four factors when considering such a motion : “whether the defendant has demonstrated a fair and just reason, whether the defendant has asserted his innocence, the length of time between the guilty plea and the motion to withdraw, and whether

the government will be prejudiced.” United States v. Prior , 107 F.3d 654, 657 (8th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). This court reviews a distric t court’s decision to den y a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion. Id.-3-

Luttrell alleges that he entered a plea agreement with the Government in which the Government would recommend a ten-yea r sentence and stop any future seizures of property. Luttrell argues that the Government breached its plea agreement and , therefore, the di strict court erroneously denied his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Appellant’s Br. at 16-17 (citing Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S. 257 (1971)). The district court examined the evi dence offered by Luttrell, but “[was] not persuaded that an agr eement had been entered into between the government, defendant, as well a s defe nse counsel.” Sent. Tr. at 100. Other factors also weighed against grantin g Luttrell’s motion: Luttrell made no claim of actual innocence, he waited se veral months befor e attempting to withdraw his plea, and granting the motion would require th e Govern ment to present its case-in-chief again. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Luttrell’s motion to withdraw his plea. Luttrell also argues that his alcohol co nsumption prior to entering his guilty plea impaire d his judgment, thereby rendering his guilty plea involuntary. Luttrel l recog nizes that the voluntariness of his plea is a question of fact and that this court gives great deference to the district court’s determination. Appellant’s Br. at 17-18

. Ba sed on Luttrell’s and his counsel’s statements at the time he pled guilty, as well as the testi mony introduced at the sentencing hearing, the district court did not err b y denying Luttrell’s motion.
III. CONCLUSION After reviewingthe record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its dis cretion by denying Luttrell’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Accordingly, we affirm.-4-

A true copy.

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