Court Opinion

ID: 9391363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 00:00:28.869484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:41.335361
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50294         Document: 00516732688             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/01/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-50294
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                     May 1, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                       Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Darwin Powell,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Western District of Texas
                                USDC No. 5:18-CR-68-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Darwin Powell challenges his conviction for conspiracy to distribute
   and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine and
   his below-Guidelines sentence of 420 months of imprisonment. He argues
   that the district court erred by denying his motions to withdraw his guilty plea
   and for reconsideration. We review the denials of both motions for an abuse

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-50294       Document: 00516732688           Page: 2     Date Filed: 05/01/2023

                                      No. 22-50294

   of discretion. See United States v. Strother, 977 F.3d 438, 443 (5th Cir. 2020);
   United States v. Rabhan, 540 F.3d 344, 346-47 (5th Cir. 2008). “A district
   court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly
   erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Strother, 977 F.3d at 443 (citation
   omitted).
          “A defendant may withdraw a guilty plea after the district court
   accepts the plea, but before it imposes a sentence, by showing a ‘fair and just
   reason’ for seeking withdrawal.” Strother, 977 F.3d at 443 (quoting Fed.
   R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B)). The defendant has the burden of proof. Strother,
   977 F.3d at 443. This court considers seven factors, namely, whether (1) the
   defendant asserted his innocence, (2) withdrawal would prejudice the
   Government, (3) the defendant delayed in filing the motion, (4) the
   withdrawal would substantially inconvenience the court, (5) close assistance
   of counsel was available, (6) the plea was knowing and voluntary, and (7)
   withdrawal would waste judicial resources. Id. (citing United States v. Carr,
   740 F.2d 339, 343-44). However, these factors “are non-exclusive,” United
   States v. Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d 361, 364 (5th Cir. 2014), and no one factor
   or combination of factors is dispositive. Strother, 977 F.3d at 443.
          The district court found that the assertion-of-innocence and
   voluntariness-of-plea factors weighed against Powell based primarily on the
   factual basis to which he agreed as part of his plea agreement and his
   testimony under oath at rearraignment. See Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63,
   74 (1977) (“Solemn declarations in open court carry a strong presumption of
   verity.”). Although he cites his testimony from the hearing on his motion to
   withdraw that he was innocent and did not understand the meaning of the
   plea agreement, the district court found this testimony incredible, and he
   does not attempt to show that the district court clearly erred this regard. See
   Strother, 977 F.3d at 443.

                                                2
Case: 22-50294        Document: 00516732688        Page: 3    Date Filed: 05/01/2023

                                    No. 22-50294

          While Powell contends that some of the Government’s claims of
   prejudice lack specificity and are unconvincing, he does not meaningfully
   address the district court’s finding that the Government would be prejudiced
   because it had spent substantial time and resources negotiating a series of
   property forfeitures contained in the plea agreement; he thus fails to show
   that the district court clearly erred in weighing this factor against him. See
   Strother, 977 F.3d at 443.      Likewise, we defer to the district court’s
   determination whether it would have been inconvenienced and whether
   judicial resources would be wasted. See United States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d
   641, 650 (5th Cir. 2009).
          Despite that counsel provided close assistance during plea
   negotiations and at rearraignment, Powell complains that his attorney failed
   to file a motion to withdraw as soon as Powell requested that he do so. To
   the extent that Powell claims that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance
   by failing to timely file a motion to withdraw, “[i]neffective assistance is a
   basis for invalidating a conviction under the Sixth Amendment and is not,
   strictly speaking, relevant to the decision of whether Defendant was denied
   close assistance of counsel under Carr analysis.” See Urias-Marrufo, 744
   F.3d at 365. Our decision does not prejudice Powell’s right to raise an
   ineffective assistance of counsel claim on this basis in a subsequent 28 U.S.C.
   § 2255 proceeding. See McKnight, 570 F.3d at 648. Powell fails to show that
   the district court clearly erred in finding that all of the Carr factors weighed
   against him except for the timeliness of his motion to withdraw. See Strother,
   977 F.3d at 443.
          Powell does not meaningfully address, and has therefore abandoned
   any challenge to, the district court’s holding that he waived the attorney-
   client privilege with regard to statements contained in his former attorney’s
   affidavit. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Even if
   Powell’s rights under the Confrontation Clause extend to the hearing on his

                                              3
Case: 22-50294      Document: 00516732688          Page: 4    Date Filed: 05/01/2023

                                    No. 22-50294

   motion to withdraw, the district court held that any error in admitting the
   affidavit was harmless because its consideration of the Carr factors would not
   have been impacted if the affidavit had been excluded. See United States v.
   Noria, 945 F.3d 847, 853 (5th Cir. 2019) (holding that violations of
   Confrontation Clause are subject to harmless error analysis). Powell does not
   challenge that holding on appeal. See Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225.
          Powell fails to show the district court abused its discretion by denying
   his motion for reconsideration without first conducting an evidentiary
   hearing regarding whether he voluntarily waived his Fifth and Sixth
   Amendment rights before making inculpatory statements to law enforcement
   officers. See United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2003).
   Finally, in arguing that Carr was decided incorrectly because it improperly
   limits the discretion of the district court in applying Rule 11(d)(2)(B), Powell
   ignores that the Carr factors are not exclusive. See Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d
   at 364. To the extent that he argues that Carr should be overruled, he
   properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed. See United States v.
   Lipscomb, 299 F.3d 303, 313 n.34 (5th Cir. 2002).
          AFFIRMED.

                                              4