Opinion ID: 2976454
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Defendant Ozro Graham

Text: On May 26, 2005, Ozro Graham pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 and § 846, as well as conspiracy to launder monetary -8- Nos. 06-1026/06-1027/07-1081 United States v. Graham instruments in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. At the plea hearing, the district court went to great lengths to ensure that there was a factual basis for Ozro Graham’s plea and to guarantee that he understood what he was doing. The district court carefully informed Graham of the rights that he was waiving and the consequences of waiving those rights, and Graham indicated clearly that he understood the significance of his guilty plea. Graham also testified that no one had threatened him or forced him to plead guilty, and that although he was taking medication for depression, he completely understood everything that was happening. Finally, Graham provided a factual basis for his plea by testifying that he had helped his brother distribute cocaine in Michigan and Tennessee and had also laundered the proceeds in various manners so as to conceal the source of the money. On September 26, 2005, Ozro Graham also sought to withdraw his guilty plea. Even though he was represented by counsel, he decided, like his brother, to take matters into his own hands by filing a pro se motion to withdraw his plea. His motion adopted the reasoning set forth in his brother’s pro se motion — i.e., that the plea agreement was invalid since it was entered into after the original offer from the Government had expired. A few weeks later, on October 11, 2005, Ozro Graham’s counsel filed another motion seeking to withdraw Ozro Graham’s guilty plea. That motion did not rely on the invalid-plea-agreement argument that Ozro Graham had made in his pro se motion.1 Instead, it claimed that Ozro Graham had been pressured into pleading guilty by his family because of the fact that the generous plea bargain offered to Riley Troy Graham was 1 Other than in his pro se motion, Ozro Graham has never mentioned the invalid plea agreement argument that his brother relies on. It is not part of his argument on appeal. -9- Nos. 06-1026/06-1027/07-1081 United States v. Graham contingent on Ozro Graham’s also pleading guilty. The motion also alleged that Ozro Graham had notified his attorney that he wanted to withdraw his plea shortly after entering it, but that his attorney had counseled against doing so. The district court rejected Graham’s motion. Among the factors that the judge found to weigh against Graham were the length of time between the plea and the motion, the unusual amount of time that the district court took with the plea colloquy, and Graham’s previous experience with the criminal justice system. The district court also found that Graham understood what he was doing when he entered his plea and was not under duress. After denying Graham’s motion, the district court sentenced him to 210 months in prison.