Foster
United States v. Foster
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Melvin Foster claims the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e). Because Foster did not present the district court with a “fair and just reason” for withdrawal, we affirm.
The district court’s finding that Foster’s guilty plea was voluntary is abundantly supported by the record. Indeed, on appeal, Foster concedes that he was never threatened or coerced into pleading guilty. Instead, he claims that, because he pled guilty in exchange for a promise of prosecutorial leniency towards his mother, he should have been allowed subsequently to withdraw his plea. A district court is not required to permit withdrawal merely because the defendant has changed his mind. United States v. Rios-Ortiz, 830 F.2d 1067, 1069-70 (9th Cir.1987). Yet that is essentially what Foster sought to do — he asserted in his original motion to withdraw his plea that “the fact that [Foster] wishes to present a defense to the charges alleged against him constitutes a prima facie case for ... a fair and just reason.” The district court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting this argument.