Court Opinion

ID: 9394043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 00:00:27.040599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:57.115146
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10819         Document: 00516747898             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/11/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10819
                                     Summary Calendar                                   FILED
                                     ____________                                     May 11, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Jaquan Eaddy,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:22-CR-39-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Davis, Smith, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Jaquan Eaddy pleaded guilty, with the benefit of a written plea
   agreement, to Hobbs Act robbery. He now appeals the district court’s denial
   of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
          We pretermit whether the instant appeal is barred by the appellate
   waiver in Eaddy’s plea agreement, as his appeal fails on the merits. See

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10819       Document: 00516747898           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/11/2023

                                      No. 22-10819

   United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226, 230-31 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v.
   Smith, 528 F.3d 423, 424 (5th Cir. 2008).
            Our review of the district court’s denial of Eaddy’s withdrawal motion
   is for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1013
   (5th Cir. 2019). After the district court accepts a guilty plea, but before it
   imposes a sentence, a defendant may withdraw the plea by showing a “fair
   and just reason” for seeking withdrawal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).
   The district court considers: (1) whether the defendant has asserted his
   innocence; (2) whether withdrawal would prejudice the Government;
   (3) whether the defendant has delayed in filing his withdrawal motion;
   (4) whether withdrawal would substantially inconvenience the court;
   (5) whether close assistance of counsel was available; (6) whether the original
   plea was knowing and voluntary; and (7) whether withdrawal would waste
   judicial resources. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir.
   1984).
            Eaddy has failed to carry his burden of showing that the district court
   abused its discretion in denying his motion based on the totality of the
   circumstances. See Lord, 915 F.3d at 1013-14. He contends that he did not
   unreasonably delay in filing his withdrawal motion, in which he argued that
   the Hobbs Act violated the Commerce Clause, because it was based on two
   Supreme Court decisions that were issued shortly before he filed his motion,
   N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), and Dobbs
   v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022).                 We are
   unpersuaded that his delay was justified, as he has not made a convincing
   argument that his withdrawal motion was based on any new legal standard
   articulated in Bruen or Dobbs.
            We also disagree with Eaddy’s argument that withdrawal would not
   substantially inconvenience the court, prejudice the government, or waste

                                               2
Case: 22-10819     Document: 00516747898          Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/11/2023

                                   No. 22-10819

   judicial resources, and we defer to the district court’s finding that those
   factors weigh against withdrawal. See Carr, 740 F.2d at 345; United States v.
   Clark, 931 F.2d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 1991). Moreover, as Eaddy concedes, his
   guilty plea was knowing and voluntary, and the “close assistance of counsel”
   factor is at best neutral. Carr, 740 F.2d at 344. Further, even if we were to
   agree with the district court’s finding that Eaddy has asserted his factual
   innocence, that would be the only Carr factor weighing in favor of
   withdrawal. Accordingly, Eaddy has not shown that the district court abused
   its discretion in denying his withdrawal motion. See Lord, 915 F.3d at 1013-
   14.
          AFFIRMED.

                                            3