Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christopher PLOOSTER, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-13
Citations: 221 F. App'x 478
Docket Number: No. 06-2687
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christopher PLOOSTER, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 221
Pages: 478–480

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christopher PLOOSTER, Appellant.
No. 06-2687.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: April 9, 2007.
Filed: April 13, 2007.
John H. Lammers, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Sioux City, IA, for Appellee.
Christopher Plooster, Leavenworth, KS, pro se.
Shelley A. Horak, Horak & Associates, Sioux City, IA, for Appellant.
Before MELLOY, BOWMAN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Plooster appeals the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Plooster pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 846, 860, possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), 860, and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The plea agreement specifically acknowledged that Plooster was subject to enhanced penalties under 21 U.S.C. § 851.
Nearly nine months after entering his guilty plea but before he was sentenced, Plooster filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d), based on the following reasons: (1) his attorney ineffectively represented him in a number of respects; (2) the attorney-client relationship between Plooster and his attorney had broken down prior to his guilty plea; and (3) he was not aware that a notice of an enhanced sentence, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, had been filed against him until after he had pled guilty. The district court held a hearing and denied the motion in a 21-page order. Plooster argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826 (8th Cir. 2006). Pursuant to Rule 11(d), a guilty plea may be withdrawn before sentencing if the defendant can show a "fair and just reason" for doing so. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d)(2)(B); United States v. Mugan, 441 F.3d 622, 630-31 (8th Cir.2006), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 127 S.Ct. 191, 166 L.Ed.2d 157 (2006). "While the standard is liberal, the defendant has no automatic right to withdraw a plea." Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d at 826. Having carefully reviewed the record, the applicable legal authorities and the thorough and well-reasoned order of the district court, we agree with the district court that Plooster did not establish a "fair and just reason" for withdrawing his guilty plea. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision and affirm its judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.