United States v. Richard Maize

MEMORANDUM

Richard Maize appeals his conviction for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and loan fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 371 , bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (1), and making a false statement on a tax return, 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (1). He contends that the district court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Maize’s proffered reasons for withdrawing his plea were not — individually or collectively — fair and just. An attorney’s “erroneous sentencing prediction ... does not entitle a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea,” United States v. Oliveros-Orosco, 942 F.2d 644, 646 (9th Cir.1991) (citing United States v. Garcia, 909 F.2d 1346, 1348 (9th Cir.1990)), other than in “exceptional circumstances” where counsel “grossly mis-characterized” the possible sentence. United States v. Briggs, 623 F.3d 724, 728-29 (9th Cir.2010) (citing United States v. Davis, 428 F.3d 802, 805-08 (9th Cir.2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court’s finding that Maize received “good, competent and sound advice” about his sentencing exposure under various…