Court Opinion

ID: 9387792
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 00:00:22.467404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:15.538850
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10693         Document: 00516715935             Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/18/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 22-10693
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                                  April 18, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   United States of America,                                                           Clerk

                                                                      Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                             versus

   Terrance Luke,

                                               Defendant—Appellant.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:18-CR-638-1
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Defendant-Appellant Terrance Luke pleaded guilty to one count of
   Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud, or Coercion under 18 U.S.C. § 1591. The
   district court denied Luke’s motion for withdrawal of his guilty plea. For the
   following reasons, we AFFIRM.

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10693      Document: 00516715935          Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/18/2023

                                    No. 22-10693

          This court normally reviews “a district court’s denial of a motion to
   withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Strother, 977
   F.3d 438, 443 (5th Cir. 2020). Luke, however, “failed to object to the report
   and recommendation on this basis, so we review for plain error.” United
   States v. Estrada, 683 F. App’x 308, 312 (5th Cir. 2017) (citing Starns v.
   Andrews, 524 F.3d 612, 617 (5th Cir. 2008)). To reverse for plain error: (1)
   “there must be an error or defect—some sort of deviation from a legal rule—
   that has not been intentionally relinquished or abandoned, i.e., affirmatively
   waived, by the appellant”; (2) “the legal error must be clear or obvious,
   rather than subject to reasonable dispute”; (3) “the error must have affected
   the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means he must
   demonstrate that it affected the outcome of the district court proceedings”;
   (4) if the above three prongs are satisfied, the court of appeals has the
   discretion to remedy the error—discretion which ought to be exercised only
   if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of
   judicial proceedings.” Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 (2009)
   (internal quotations, citations, and brackets 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. In deciding the matter, “the court must ultimately examine the
   totality of the circumstances.” Id. There are seven factors the court must
   consider:
          (1) whether the defendant has asserted his innocence; (2) whether the
          government would suffer prejudice if the withdrawal motion were
          granted; (3) whether the defendant delayed in filing his withdrawal
          motion; (4) whether the withdrawal would substantially
          inconvenience the court; (5) whether close assistance of counsel was
          available to the defendant; (6) whether the original plea was knowing

                                         2
Case: 22-10693      Document: 00516715935           Page: 3    Date Filed: 04/18/2023

                                     No. 22-10693

          and voluntary; and (7) whether withdrawal would waste judicial
          resources.”
   Id. (citing United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343–44 (5th Cir. 1984)).
          Luke has failed to carry his burden of showing that the district court
   clearly erred in applying and assessing any of these factors. Luke thrice
   admitted, under oath, that he committed all of the elements of sex trafficking
   through force, fraud, or coercion. His delay of more than a year between entry
   of his guilty plea and his motion to withdraw is quite long and has little
   justification. The district court found that Luke’s withdrawal would
   substantially inconvenience the court, prejudice the government, and waste
   judicial resources. Luke has also failed to show any clear error in the district
   court’s analysis of these factors. Finally, the district court undertook a proper
   rearraignment to ensure that Luke pleaded guilty knowingly and voluntarily.
   Because Luke has failed to show clear error, this court need not reach the
   three additional prongs for plain error review. AFFIRMED.

                                          3