Opinion ID: 1238393
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reaching the Merits

Text: Showalter argues that, in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court improperly reached the merits of his proffered defense. He contends the district court's negative characterization of his position and the court's assertion of an improper motive for him moving to withdraw his guilty plea prove that the court actually ruled on the merits of his case. He bases his argument on the district court's use of phrases such as investors allegedly,  defendant contends,  defendant claims,  defendant has merely shown, and defendant's mere reevaluation of his tactical strength. This language was used in the context of the district court's summary of the arguments presented by the parties, not an evaluation of the merits of the case or Showalter's defense. What Showalter calls negative characterization is actually common language used by attorneys and the court to discuss legal claims. It would be difficult for a court to discuss a case without using words such as allegedly, contends, and claims. As correctly stated by the government, [t]he court's qualifying language was merely a method of recounting the facts and arguments as alleged or asserted by the parties without making unnecessary factual findings.