Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Ramiro VICHARELLY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-22
Citations: 514 F. App'x 491
Docket Number: No. 12-50197
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Ramiro VICHARELLY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 514
Pages: 491–492

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Ramiro VICHARELLY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-50197
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 22, 2013.
Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael S. Truesdale, Esq., Austin, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jose Ramiro Vicharelly appeals his convictions of conspiracy to commit visa fraud and conspiracy to encourage aliens to illegally enter and reside in the United States. Vicharelly argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
A defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea but, rather, bears the burden of showing that "a fair and just reason" warrants the withdrawal. United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir.2003). We review the denial of a motion to withdraw for an abuse of discretion. Id. In light of the record evidence, the parties' arguments, and the relevant, non-exclusive factors originally set forth in United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir.1984), we conclude that Vichar-elly, who admitted to detailed facts of his guilt while under oath over four months before he filed the motion to withdraw, fails to show an abuse of discretion by the district court. See Powell, 354 F.3d at 370; United States v. Lampazianie, 251 F.3d 519, 524-25 (5th Cir.2001).
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.