Opinion ID: 4567517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of the Motion to Withdraw the Guilty Plea

Text: Valdez's first claim is that the district court failed to ensure that he adequately understood the nature of the charged offenses and erroneously determined that there was a factual basis for the plea pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(G), (b)(3). Assuming, arguendo, that Valdez preserved this claim, the record makes clear that the plea was in full compliance with Rule 11. Our earlier description of the plea agreement and the change-of-plea hearing disposes of this claim. See, e.g., United States v. DíazConcepción, 860 F.3d 32, 37, 39 n.4 (1st Cir. 2017); United States v. Ramos-Mejía, 721 F.3d 12, 14-16 (1st Cir. 2013). The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that there was no fair and just reason for withdrawing the guilty plea given the weakness of defendant's arguments and the timing of his motion. See Rodríguez-Morales, 647 F.3d at 398-99 (explaining that the force of the reasons offered by the defendant and the timing of the motion are two of the factors courts consider in determining whether to permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing (quoting United States v. Padilla-Galarza, 351 F.3d 594, 597 (1st Cir. 2003))). Valdez's second argument is that the district court failed to inquire adequately into the medication issue to ensure that his plea was voluntary and intelligent. See United States v. - 9 - Kenney, 756 F.3d 36, 46-47 (1st Cir. 2014); United States v. ParraIbañez, 936 F.2d 588, 595-96 (1st Cir. 1991). This specific claim was not raised before the district court, and thus we review it for plain error. See Kenney, 756 F.3d at 45. After Valdez informed the district court at the changeof-plea hearing that he had not taken his anxiety medication that day, the court followed up with questions directed at the defendant's ability to think clearly despite not having done so. Valdez answered that he was aware of what's happening and c[ould] think clearly. The court also observed Valdez's demeanor and his apt responses to its questions. The court's inquiry was clearly adequate. See id. at 46-47. Furthermore, Valdez makes no attempt to show a reasonable probability that, but for this alleged error, he would not have entered the plea agreement. Given the strength of the evidence against him, as well as the substantial benefit conferred by the plea agreement -- avoiding a mandatory life sentence -- it is highly doubtful that Valdez would have rejected that agreement. The defendant's third claim is that the district court erred in finding that he understood the period of incarceration which would result from the plea agreement. That argument is only referenced briefly in the defendant's summary of argument, is not further developed, and so is waived. GGNSC Admin. Servs., LLC v. Schrader, 958 F.3d 93, 95 (1st Cir. 2020). Even if the claim were - 10 - not waived, the plea agreement, Valdez's acknowledgment of the plea agreement, and the discussion at the change-of-plea hearing demonstrate that Valdez was fully aware of the period of incarceration he was facing when he pleaded guilty.