United States v. Willie Redd

MEMORANDUM

Willie Antoine Redd appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Redd argues that he provided fair and just reasons, namely improper legal advice and new evidence, for withdrawing his guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B).

1. We review the district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of discretion. United States v. Briggs, 623 F.3d 724, 727 (9th Cir.2010). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting Redd’s claim that his former attorney improperly advised him on the merits of a potential suppression motion. A defendant may change his plea on the basis that his attorney “grossly mischaracterized” his sentence, United States v. Davis, 428 F.3d 802, 805 (9th Cir.2005), or failed to inform him of a potential suppression motion, United States v. McTiernan, 546 F.3d 1160, 1167-68 (9th Cir.2008). Here, the district court considered testimony from both Redd and the former attorney, weighed the evidence, and fully credited the former attorney’s statement that he discussed a motion to suppress evidence with…