Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo VERDUZCO-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-21
Citations: 171 F. App'x 488
Docket Number: No. 04-11322
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo VERDUZCO-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 488–489

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lorenzo VERDUZCO-MENDOZA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-11322.
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided March 21, 2006.
Suzanna O. Etessam, U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Victor Samuel Elfenbein, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo Verduzco-Mendoza pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of methamphetamine. He appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. 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). Verduzco-Mendoza's assertions of innocence were not made under oath, and he has provided no good justification for his delay in seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. See id.; see also United States v. Clark, 931 F.2d 292, 294-95 (5th Cir.1991). His plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered and he enjoyed the close assistance of counsel. See Carr, 740 F.2d at 343-44. The district court's finding that Verduzco-Mendoza's motion to withdraw his guilty plea was an attempt to manipulate the system was not clearly erroneous, and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See id. at 343-45; see also United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir.2003).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.