Court Opinion

ID: 9949825
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 18:00:26.229342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:33:39.344263
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20194            Document: 83-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/12/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit

                                   ____________                                     FILED
                                                                              March 12, 2024
                                    No. 23-20194                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                  Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                  ____________

United States of America,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                          versus

John Cruise,

                                            Defendant—Appellant.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:18-CR-344-1
                   ______________________________

Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Defendant-Appellant John Cruise pleaded guilty, with the benefit of a
plea agreement, to conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and wire fraud. He
was sentenced within the guidelines range to 240 months of imprisonment.
He now appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea and its calculation of the loss amount for purposes of the Guidelines.

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20194        Document: 83-1       Page: 2     Date Filed: 03/12/2024

                                  No. 23-20194

       Our review of the denial of Cruise’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 such a plea by showing a “fair and just reason”
for seeking withdrawal. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). The district court
must consider: (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).
       Cruise 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. In particular, he has not
provided a “substantial supporting record” for his assertion of innocence,
United States v. Strother, 977 F.3d 438, 444 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted); he has not sufficiently explained the
more than 17-month delay in filing his motion; his assertion that he was under
pressure to plead guilty is insufficient to rebut the “strong presumption of
verity” afforded to his testimony at rearraignment that his guilty plea was
voluntary, Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 74 (1977); the record reflects he
received close assistance of counsel given that his attorney was available
throughout the proceedings and Cruise expressed satisfaction with his
counsel’s performance, see Strother, 977 F.3d at 445; and he has not shown
any abuse of discretion in the district court’s finding that withdrawal would
prejudice the Government, waste judicial resources, and inconvenience the
court. See Carr, 740 F.2d at 343-44.

                                       2
Case: 23-20194        Document: 83-1       Page: 3     Date Filed: 03/12/2024

                                  No. 23-20194

       For the first time on appeal, Cruise asserts that the district court erred
in calculating his offense level based on the loss amount of $91.7 million
instead of $32.2 million. Our review is for plain error only. Puckett v. United
States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009). “Because [Cruise’s] total offense level
would have been the same (the Guidelines maximum of 43),” if the court had
used the $32.2 million figure, “he cannot show that any error in the district
court’s . . . calculations affected his substantial rights.” United States v.
McGavitt, 28 F.4th 571, 579 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 282 (2022). His
argument thus fails on plain error review. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135.
       AFFIRMED.

                                       3