United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

______________

No. 96-4140WM

______________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * On Appeal from the United

v. * States District Court for

 * the Western District of

Donald Lee Baxter, Jr., * Missouri.

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: October 1, 1997

 Filed: October 27, 1997

___________

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HANSEN and MURPHY, Circuit

Judges.

___________

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.

Jose Jesus Varela, Donald Lee Baxter, Jr., Loreto Romero, and Erasmo Lajam

were arrested at a Kansas City, Missouri train station after they drove there to meet a

confidential informant whom Baxter and Romero had hired to transport cocaine from

California, and Baxter took possession of the informant's suitcase containing the

cocaine. The approximate gross weight of the cocaine was 21.28 kilograms. All four
The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

1

District of Missouri.

-2-

were charged with conspiring to possess five or more kilograms of cocaine with intent

to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), and 846; and with

aiding and abetting each other in attempting to possess five or more kilograms of

cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of sections 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A), 846,

and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Baxter pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count. In this appeal,

Baxter challenges the District Court's refusal to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. 1

We affirm.

Baxter argues that counsel had advised him he would receive only a 15-year

sentence by pleading guilty (he ultimately was sentenced to 292 months’

imprisonment); that he had spoken with counsel for only five minutes before signing

the plea agreement, and had not read the agreement in detail or understood it; and that

he thus had been confused about the nature of his agreement and the sentence he would

receive. 

At his plea hearing, however, Baxter told the Court he wanted to plead guilty and

understood the range of imprisonment; agreed he was guilty of the charged offense, and

understood he did not have to plead guilty; acknowledged he had read and signed the

plea agreement, and had understood it prior to signing it; and twice acknowledged he

could not withdraw his guilty plea on the basis of the sentence the Court would

ultimately impose under the Guidelines. Baxter also confirmed he had not been

threatened or coerced into pleading guilty, he was entering his guilty plea freely and

voluntarily, and he was satisfied with counsel. The Court informed Baxter of the

constitutional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, and admonished him before

accepting his plea that he could not withdraw his guilty plea because of an asserted lack

of understanding.
-3-

The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Baxter permission to

withdraw his guilty plea. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e); United States v. Wicker, 80 F.3d

263, 266 (8th Cir. 1996) (defendant bears burden of showing “fair and just reason” to

withdraw his guilty plea); United States v. Burney, 75 F.3d 442, 445 (8th Cir. 1996)

(defendant&s misapprehension of application of Guidelines is not fair and just reason

so long as defendant was told range of potential punishment and that Guidelines would

be applied); United States v. Newson, 46 F.3d 730, 732 (8th Cir. 1995) (where court

fully informed defendant of rights he was waiving, and defendant&s plea-hearing

representations support finding that he knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty and

acknowledged committing crime, occasion for setting aside guilty plea should seldom

arise). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

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