P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50552 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. J OR GE L UI S L OP EZ
- AL F ONS O D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 3: 07- C R
- 1890- 1 B ef ore SM ITH , ST E W A R T an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Jor g e L u is L o p e z -A lfon so (L o p e z ) p lea d e dg u iltyp u rsu an tt o a w rit t enpl ea agreem en tt o kn ow i n gl y a n d in t en t i on al l y i m porti n g 50 k i l ogram s orm ore of m ar ij uana . Ove rfo urm o nt hs a f t e rt he di s t r i c tc o ur ta c c e pt e d Lo pe z ’ s pl e a, he m o ve d t o w i t hdr aw hi s g ui l t y pl e a s o t hathe c o ul d pl ead g u i l t y t o t he i n d i ctm en t, w h i ch also ch a rg edL op ez w i thpo sse ssion w i thi n ten t t o d i strib u te 50 kil o gr am s o rm o r e o f m ar ij uana . The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d the m o t i o n. United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D May 22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50552

2 L op ez arg u es th a t th e d is tr ic t cou rt erred i n de n yin g h i s m oti on to w i th d ra w h i s gu i l ty p l ea . W e rev i ew a d i stric t c o u rt’ s d en i a lof am oti on to w ith d r a w ag u iltyp le afo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Un ited S ta tes v. Po w ell , 354 F. 3d 362 , 370 ( 5th C i r. 200 3) . Lop ez concedes t h at he ha s not assert ed h i s i n n ocence, an d h e di d n otf

i l e t h e m ot i on un t i lover f ou r m on t h s af

t er th e date tha tthe p l ea ag r e e m e ntw as s i gne d a nd the r e ar r ai gnm e ntw as he l d. Lo pe z ha d the assi st an ce of

coun sel du ri n g h i s gu i l t y pl ea proceedi n gs, as L opez ack n ow l edg ed i n open courtdu ri n g h i s r earrai gn m en t . Lop ez ha s not i den t i f i ed an y dev i ati on f rom F ederalR u le of C ri m i n alP rocedure 11 b y t h e di st ri ctcourtor ot h erw i se c h a lle n g e dt h e v a lid ityo f h is g u iltyp le a . S e eB oy k i n v . A la b a ma , 395 U . S. 238, 2 4 4 (1 9 6 9 ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. R eyes , 3 0 0 F .3d5 5 5 , 5 5 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). F i n al l y, w i t h draw alof L opez’ s pl ea w ou l d li kely h ave i n volved t h e di st ri ct c our ti n subs equentproc ee di ngs, bu t , on t he ot herh and, w i t hdraw alcoul d have s a v e dj u d i c i a lr e s o u r c e s f r o m b e i n ge x p e n d e do n a n o t h e r wi s e l i k e l y2 8 U. S . C. § 2 255 m ot i on . Bec aus e a l lo f t he r e l e va ntfac t o r s w e i gh i n fav o ro f t he G overnm en t , except f or t w o t h at are m ore orl ess i n equ i poi se, L opez h as not est abli shedt h at th e di st ri ctcourtabu sed h i s di scr et i on i n den yi n g h i s m o tion to w ith d r a w h is p le a . S ee Po w ell , 3 5 4 F .3 da t 3 7 0 ; see als o Un i t ed S t ate s v. Carr , 7 4 0 F .2 d3 3 9 , 3 4 3 -4 4 (5 th C ir .1 9 8 4 ). A s p a r t o f h is p le a a g r e e m e n t, L o p e z w a iv e dh is rig h t t o a p p e a l h is s e n te n c e o n a n yg r o u n d . L o p e z a r g u e s th a t h is a p p e a l w a iv e ris u n e n fo r c e a b le d u e t o in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b yh is fir s t t r ia l a tt o r n e y . Ad e fe n d a n t m a ya v o id a w aiverof

appealon th e gr ou nds t hatt he w aiverorgui l t y pl ea i t se l f w as ta in te db yin e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f c o u n s e l. Un itedS ta tes v. W h ite , 307 F. 3d 3 3 6 , 3 3 9 , 3 4 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e L o p e z d i d n o tra is e h is i n effe c tiv e a ssistan ce of cou n sel cl a i m be fore th e d i stri ct cou rt, w e d ecli n e to c o ns i de ritw i t ho utpr ej udi c e t o a ny r i ghtLo pe z m ayha ve t o rais e iti n a s u b s e q u e n t p r o c e e d in g . S ee Un i t ed Stat es v. G u l ley , 5 2 6 F .3d8 0 9 , 8 2 1 (5t h C ir.) , cer t . den i ed , 1 2 9 S . C t. 1 5 9 (20 0 8 ).N o. 08- 50552

3 L opez conced es t h at hi s ch a ll en ge t o t h e reasonab l en ess of hi s s en t en ce fall s w i t hi n t he s c o pe o f t he w aive ro f

a ppe ali n hi s pl e a ag r e e m e nt , a nd h e pr e s e nt s no c hall e nget o t he e nf o r c eabil i t y o f

t he w aive ro t he rt han t he in e ffe c tiv e a s s is ta n c e cla im a d d r e s s e d a b o v e . A c c o r d in g ly , w e d e n yh is sentenci n g cl ai m as barred by the ap pea lw aiver. AF F I RMED.