### In the



# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

____________________

No. 15

‐ 2260

U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA

, Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v.

D ANTE G RAF

, Defendant

‐ Appellant

.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 13

‐ CR

‐ 54

— Rudolph T. Randa

, Judge

.

____________________

A RGUED D ECEMBER 9, 2015

— D ECIDED J UNE 27, 2016

____________________

Before E ASTERBROOK and H AMILTON

, Circuit Judges

, and

P ALLMEYER

, District Judge

. *

H AMILTON

, Circuit Judge

. Secret Service agents observed

Dante Graf twice sell counterfeit U.S. currency to an inform

‐

ant. Under a plea agreement, Graf pled guilty to one charge

of dealing in counterfeit currency in violation of 18 U.S.C.

* The Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the Northern District of Illinois,

sitting by designation.2 No. 15

‐ 2260

§ 473. The district court accepted Graf’s plea agreement fol

‐ lowing a thorough colloquy under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 11. Graf later failed to appear for a bond revocation

hearing and managed to avoid law enforcement for several

months. After his eventual discovery and re

‐ arrest, Graf’s

newly

‐ assigned lawyer told him about the possibility of filing

a motion to compel the government to disclose the identity of

the confidential informant. Graf moved to withdraw his

guilty plea so he could file such a motion. The district court

denied the motion and then sentenced Graf to 63 months in

prison.

The only issue on appeal is whether the district court

abused its discretion in finding that Graf had not shown a

“fair and just reason” for withdrawing his plea within the

meaning of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B).

E.g., United States v. Redmond

, 667 F.3d 863, 870 (7th Cir. 2012)

(abuse of discretion standard). It did not, so we affirm.

Graf was indicted in April 2013 and arraigned on June 29,

2013. Three months later, he and his lawyer and the prosecu

‐

tion signed and filed a written plea agreement in which Graf

agreed to plead guilty to one charge under § 473 and the gov

‐

ernment agreed to dismiss a second charge. The agreement

did not impose any limits on the court’s sentence of Graf.

At a change of plea hearing on September 26, 2013, Graf

was placed under oath and the district court undertook the

required colloquy with him. The colloquy established that

Graf was competent to decide how to plead, was pleading vol

‐ untarily, and was aware of the rights he would waive by

pleading guilty. Graf also told the judge that he was happy

with the way his lawyer had handled the case. The judge also

reviewed the maximum potential penalties the court couldNo. 15

‐ 2260 3

impose, including imprisonment, fines, and restitution. After

all of that, Graf admitted he was guilty of the counterfeiting

charge. Assured that Graf was entering his guilty plea volun

‐ tarily and knowingly and that there was a sound factual basis

for the plea, the court accepted his plea, adjudged him guilty,

and scheduled sentencing for January 7, 2014.

Before sentencing, Graf absconded and failed to appear for

court hearings. Several months later, he was re

‐ arrested. Fol

‐ lowing some unrelated proceedings in state courts, Graf’s fed

‐

eral sentencing was set for January 29, 2015. But on January

26, 2015, and represented by new counsel, Graf told the dis

‐

trict court he wanted to withdraw the guilty plea the court

had accepted sixteen months earlier. He then filed a written

motion to withdraw his guilty plea, asserting that his first

lawyer had never told him about the possibility of filing a so

‐

called “ Roviaro motion” to compel the government to disclose

the identity of the confidential source, with the prospect of

dismissing the case if the government were to refuse to make

the disclosure. See Roviaro v. United States

, 353 U.S. 53, 60–61

(1957). Graf asserted that he would have pursued a Roviaro

motion before deciding whether to plead guilty.

The district court denied Graf’s motion, concluding that he

had “not offered any reasons, much less any just reasons, why

the disclosure of the confidential informant would have sub

‐ stantially altered the course of his case or the factual scenario

to which Graf admitted his guilt.” The court sentenced Graf

to 63 months in prison, which was the high end of the Sen

‐ tencing Guideline range for an offender with Graf’s criminal

history who manufactured counterfeit currency and ob

‐

structed justice by absconding and failing to appear at a sub

‐

sequent hearing. U.S.S.G. §§ 2B5.1(b)(3) & 3C1.1(4)(E).4 No. 15

‐ 2260

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B) provides

that a defendant “may withdraw a plea of guilty

... after the

court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if:

... the

defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the

withdrawal.” This court has recognized three general

grounds that merit withdrawal of a guilty plea: where the de

‐

fendant shows actual innocence or legal innocence, and

where the guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary. United

States v. Mays

, 593 F.3d 603, 607 (7th Cir. 2010). None of those

grounds applies here, however.

Whether to allow withdrawal of an accepted guilty plea is

left to the sound discretion of the district court. United States

v. Redmond

, 667 F.3d 863, 870 (7th Cir. 2012); United States v.

Peleti

, 576 F.3d 377, 382 (7th Cir. 2009). Reversals are rare,

though not unheard of. See, e.g., United States v. Fard

, 775 F.3d

939 (7th Cir. 2015) (transcript showed plea was not knowing

and voluntary); United States v. Gomez

‐ Orozco

, 188 F.3d 422

(7th Cir. 2003) (after pleading guilty, defendant learned he

might be a U.S. citizen, which would be complete defense to

charge); United States v. Groll

, 992 F.2d 755 (7th Cir. 1993) (va

‐ cating unexplained denial of motion to withdraw where un

‐

contested facts in presentence report supported entrapment

defense and defendant had not known of that possible de

‐ fense).

A plea of guilty is a formal and solemn step, where the de

‐

fendant admits his guilt under oath after assuring the court,

also under oath, that he is ready, willing, and able to make

that decision after consulting sufficiently with his lawyer and

being informed about all matters that he needs to know about

to make the decision. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b). A defendant’sNo. 15

‐ 2260 5

motion to withdraw is unlikely to have merit if it seeks to dis

‐

pute his sworn assurances to the court. United States v. Collins

,

796 F.3d 829, 834 (7th Cir. 2015) (district court may presume

truth of defendant’s prior sworn statements in plea colloquy);

see also Mays

, 593 F.3d at 607 (answers to proper Rule 11 col

‐ loquy are presumed true, imposing heavy burden on defend

‐

ant and leaving the “fair and just” escape hatch “narrow”). Of

particular relevance here, we have often held that a defendant

can offer a knowing and voluntary plea without having re

‐

ceived full discovery from the government. See United States

v. Underwood

, 174 F.3d 850, 853–54 (7th Cir. 1999) (collecting

cases).

In this case, Graf’s motion to withdraw did not call into

question his factual or legal guilt. Rather, long after he had

offered his plea and had it accepted, and knowing he faced a

more severe sentence than he had expected as a result of his

intervening obstruction of justice, his motion indicated only

that he wanted to try a new tactical defense gambit in an oth

‐

erwise defenseless case: a Roviaro motion seeking the identity

of the informant to whom he sold the counterfeit currency. We

find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the

motion to withdraw the plea. Graf’s motion reflected no more

than a desire to pursue a last, desperate defense tactic that

would have had nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

As a general rule, ineffective assistance of counsel may

prevent a defendant’s guilty plea from being knowing and

voluntary. United States v. Lundy

, 484 F.3d 480, 484 (7th Cir.

2007); see generally Lafler v. Cooper

, 566 U.S.

—, 132 S. Ct. 1376

(2012) (right to effective assistance of counsel in plea negotia

‐

tions); Missouri v. Frye

, 566 U.S.

—, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012)6 No. 15

‐ 2260

(same). To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, a de

‐

fendant must show both that counsel’s performance was ob

‐ jectively unreasonable and that, but for counsel’s errors, there

is a reasonable probability that the result would have been

different. Strickland v. Washington

, 466 U.S. 668, 694 (1984); see

also Hill v. Lockhart

, 474 U.S. 52, 56–57 (1985) ( Strickland stand

‐

ard applies to complaint about counsel’s assistance regarding

guilty plea). A motion to withdraw a guilty plea as having

been based on inadequate legal advice will succeed only if the

defendant shows “that the advice on which his plea was pred

‐

icated not only was not within the range of competence de

‐

manded of attorneys in criminal cases, but also that there is a

reasonable probability that but for [counsel’s] unprofessional

errors, the result would have been different.” United States v.

Pike

, 211 F.3d 385, 390 (7th Cir. 2000). “Courts begin with the

presumption that a defendant has not suffered prejudice.” Id.

Graf has not even attempted to show these element under

Strickland

. He has not attempted to show that his original law

‐

yer acted outside the realm of competence in opting not to

discuss or pursue a Roviaro motion. Nor has he shown any

reasonable prospect that the outcome of the case would have

been more favorable to him if he had pursued such a motion.

Disclosure of an informant’s identity is not a matter courts

take lightly, but rather requires a balancing of “the public in

‐

terest

... against the individual’s right to prepare his defense.”

United States v. Jefferson

, 252 F.3d 937, 940–41 (7th Cir. 2001).

To compel disclosure, a defendant must establish that the

source’s identity is “relevant and helpful” to his defense or

“essential to a fair determination of a cause.” Roviaro

, 353 U.S.

at 60–61. Even if a Roviaro motion might have been granted,

there is no good reason to expect that it would have benefited

Graf. His assertions regarding possible entrapment defensesNo. 15

‐ 2260 7

or impeachment for bias are entirely speculative. And even if

a Roviaro motion had been granted, there is no reason to be

‐

lieve the government would have refused to identify the in

‐

formant or made any concessions in the plea agreement. Also,

the government would have been within its rights by re

‐ sponding to a Roviaro motion by taking the plea offer off the

table.

Rather than attempt to show ineffective assistance of

counsel, Graf has argued to the district court and on appeal

that the focus should be on his subjective state of mind. He

contends this circuit should apply a standard for withdraw

‐ ing a guilty plea that was applied by the Ninth Circuit in

United States v. McTiernan

, 546 F.3d 1160 (9th Cir. 2008). That

standard would be more generous to defendants and less def

‐

erential to district judges. The defendant in McTiernan moved

to withdraw his guilty plea on the theory that his original law

‐

yer had provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise

him that he could move to suppress key government evi

‐

dence. 546 F.3d at 1165. The district court denied the motion

to withdraw, but the Ninth Circuit reversed.

The Ninth Circuit did not apply the Strickland standard or

require the defendant to show that the motion to suppress

had at least a reasonable prospect of success, which would

seem to be essential under the Strickland prejudice require

‐

ment. The Ninth Circuit held instead that the defendant

needed to show only that additional advice about another de

‐

fense strategy (filing a motion to suppress) “could have at

least plausibly motivated a reasonable person in [defendant’s]8 No. 15

‐ 2260

position not to have pled guilty had he known” before plead

‐ ing about the grounds offered for suppression. Id

. at 1168. 1

In an attempt to satisfy the McTiernan approach, Graf as

‐

serts that if he had known of Roviaro

, he would have sought

the identity of the informant before deciding whether to plead

guilty. We decline to adopt that approach. No other circuit has

adopted the McTiernan standard, which conflicts with our

long

‐ standing approach to the “fair and just” standard under

Rule 11(d)(2)(B). Our approach is designed to allow with

‐

drawal for sound reasons, but to minimize the use of such mo

‐

tions to withdraw based on gamesmanship and strategic

hindsight. “A plea can be perfectly voluntary in the face of in

‐ complete information.” United States v. Davey

, 550 F.3d 653,

656 (7th Cir. 2008). We have often held that a defendant’s lack

of knowledge about the evidence that would be offered

against him at trial does not constitute a fair and just reason

for him to withdraw his plea as long as there is a sound factual

basis for the plea. United States v. Bryan

, 557 F.3d 489, 496 (7th

Cir. 2009) (collecting cases). Similarly, a defendant is not enti

‐

tled to withdraw his guilty plea simply because he later dis

‐

covers a weakness in the government’s ability to prove its case

at trial. This reasoning applies with even more force to Graf’s

desire to try to create such a weakness even after the court had

accepted his plea of guilty.

1 On remand in McTiernan

, the district court allowed the defendant to

withdraw his guilty plea and then considered and denied his motion to

suppress. The defendant then again pled guilty while preserving his right

to appeal. The Ninth Circuit affirmed denial of the motion to suppress.

United States v. McTiernan

, 695 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2012).No. 15

‐ 2260 9

Such defense strategies may be perfectly legitimate in the

first instance, but they do not involve questions of legal or fac

‐

tual innocence. They do not undermine the voluntary and

knowing character of the plea when it was offered and ac

‐ cepted. To the contrary, the filing of such a motion after ac

‐

ceptance of a plea smacks of gamesmanship. Granting a mo

‐

tion to withdraw in such instances “would degrade the other

‐

wise serious act of pleading guilty into something akin to a

move in a game of chess.” United States v. Hyde

, 520 U.S. 670,

677 (1997) (reversing appellate court’s reversal of denial of

motion to withdraw a guilty plea).

Requiring a district court to allow such a tactic would “di

‐ minish[] the solemnity of the taking of the plea” because Rule

11 requires judges to take such great care in accepting guilty

pleas to ensure that entry of a plea is not a meaningless act.

United States v. Ellison

, 798 F.2d 1102, 1106 (7th Cir. 1986); see

also Hyde

, 520 U.S. at 677 (allowing automatic withdrawal un

‐

less government could show prejudice would reduce guilty

plea to “a mere gesture, a temporary and meaningless formal

‐ ity reversible at the defendant’s whim”), quoting Fed. R. Crim.

P. 32(e) (1983) (Advisory Committee notes on addition of “fair

and just reason” standard for withdrawing pleas).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying

the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The judg

‐

ment of the district court is AFFIRMED.