Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ARMENTA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-22
Citations: 126 F. App'x 204
Docket Number: No. 04-10150
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ARMENTA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 126
Pages: 204–205

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose ARMENTA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-10150.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided April 22, 2005.
Delonia Anita Watson, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Ricardo De Los Santos, Law Office of Ricardo De Los Santos, Cleburne, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
José Armenta pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of a substance containing methamphetamine. He appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and further asserts that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. We find no error in the district court's application of the factors to be considered in deciding whether to grant a motion to withdraw. See United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984). Armenia's assertion of innocence was equivocal at best, and he provided no good justification for his delay in seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. See id. We also find no error in the district court's determination that withdrawal of the plea would inconvenience the court and would waste judicial resources.
The district court's findings that Armenta had close assistance of counsel and that his plea was made knowingly and voluntarily are supported by the record. The district court conducted a thorough Rule 11 colloquy, and Armenta affirmed that he understood the nature of the charges and denied any coercion. Armenta has failed to overcome the presumption of veracity that attaches to statements made under oath in open court. See United States v. Cervantes, 132 F.3d 1106, 1110 (5th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the denial of Armenia's motion to withdraw.
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.