Opinion ID: 3190891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Untimely Motion to Withdraw Plea

Text: After sentencing, in a Motion to Dismiss or Withdraw Plea filed on March 19, 2013, Martínez-Hernández petition[ed] the Court to revisit its position that no actual conflict of interest [arose] in this case. He attached a series of emails to or from Torres in support of his motion. However, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(e), [a]fter the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and the plea may be set aside - 18 - only on direct appeal or collateral attack. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(e). Martínez-Hernández does not claim that this motion was brought as part of a collateral attack. And so, to the extent that this was a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court did not have jurisdiction to entertain it.9 On appeal, Martínez-Hernández suggests that the March 19, 2013, motion titled Motion to Dismiss or Withdraw Plea was neither a motion to dismiss nor a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, but was instead a Motion for Reconsideration. However, Martínez-Hernández cannot submit an untimely motion to withdraw his guilty plea under this post hoc rationalization. Motions for reconsideration are not to be used as 'a vehicle for a party to undo its own procedural failures [or] allow a party to advance arguments that could and should have been presented to the district 9 The March 19, 2013, motion is hardly a model of clarity. It is captioned Motion to Dismiss or Withdraw Plea, and the first sentence seeks to dismiss the indictment until a fair, impartial, and conflict free prosecution can be secured. But apart from two passing references, one of which stated that the prosecution failed to notify the Court and the Defendant about Torres's purported conflict, the lion's share of the motion focuses on whether defense counsel may have affected the Defendant's rights to due process under the Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free representation. Looking at the substance of the motion, we conclude that this was a motion to withdraw a guilty plea based on allegations of a Sixth Amendment violation. See United States v. Ortiz, 741 F.3d 288, 291 (1st Cir. 2014) (Ascertaining a motion's character depends upon its substance, not its appellation.). In any event, to the extent MartínezHernández was seeking to dismiss the indictment for prosecutorial misconduct, this argument is not developed on appeal. - 19 - court prior to judgment.' United States v. Allen, 573 F.3d 42, 53 (1st Cir. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94, 104 (1st Cir. 2006)).