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

___________ Befo re RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HANSEN and MURPHY, Circui t Judges.

___________ RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge.
Jose Jesu s Varela, Donald Lee Baxter, Jr., Loreto Romero, and Erasmo Lajam were arreste d at a Kansas City, Missouri train station after they drove there to meet a confid ential informant whom Baxter and Romero had hired to transport cocaine from Calif ornia, and Baxter took possession of the informant's suitcase containing th e cocaine. The approximate gross weight of the cocaine was 21.28 kilograms. All fourThe Ho norable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Wester n 1 District of Missouri. -2- were charged with conspiring to po ssess 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 a betting each other in attempting to possess five or more kilograms o f 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 allowhim to withdraw his guilty plea. 1 We affirm.

Baxter arg ues that counsel had advised him he would receive only a 15-year sentence by pleading guilty (he ultimately was sentenced to 292 months ’ im prisonment); that he had spoken with counsel for only five minutes before signin g 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 gui lty and understood the range of imprisonment; agreed he was guilty of the cha rged offense, and understood h e did not have to plead guilty; acknowledged he had read and signed the plea agree ment, and had understood it prior to signing it; and twice acknowledged he
co uld not withdraw his guilty plea on the basis of the sentence the Court woul d ultimatel y impose under the Guidelines. Baxter also confirmed he had not bee n threat enedor coerced into pleading guilty, he was entering his guilty plea freely an d voluntar ily, and he was satisfied with counsel. The Court informed Baxter of th e constit utional rights he was waiving by pleading guilty, and admonished him befor e 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) (d efendant & s misapprehension of application of Guidelines is not fair and just reaso n so long as defendant was told range of potential punishment and that Guidelines would be app lied); United States v. Newson , 46 F.3d 730, 732 (8th Cir. 1995) (where court fu llyinformed defendant of rights he was waiving, and defendant & s plea-hearin g re presentations support finding that he knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty an d acknowledged commi tting 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.