Tanner

*563 MEMORANDUM **

Robert Lee Tanner (“Tanner”) appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea and sentence. We have jurisdiction, see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , 18 U.S.C. § 3742 , and affirm. The parties are familiar with the facts, and therefore, we only address those necessary to our analysis.

Tanner first contends that the district court erred by not granting him leave to withdraw his guilty plea. We review the district court’s denial of Tanner’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Rios-Ortiz, 830 F.2d 1067, 1069 (9th Cir.1987).

Tanner argues that he did not receive fair notice of the charges and consequences of a guilty plea because of “sweeping changes in the law” that occurred subsequent to his plea, notably Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 , 116 S.Ct. 501 , 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We disagree. The record establishes that the district court engaged in a thorough and lengthy plea colloquy with Tanner. Tanner was represented by counsel and had sufficient awareness of the charges and potential consequences to render…