USA v. Christopher Maurice Norman

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-11973
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:13-cr-00027-CAR-CHW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CHRISTOPHER MAURICE NORMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(March 9, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and JULIE CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-11973 Date Filed: 03/09/2016 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Christopher Norman appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea and his sentence of imprisonment for 150 months. Norman argues that the
district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty
plea because counsel incorrectly estimated his sentencing guideline range. He also
argues that the district court erred by classifying him as a career offender, U.S.S.G.
§ 4B1.1(c)(3). We affirm.
We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469, 471 (11th Cir. 1988). And we
review the application and interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo and
any underlying findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Elliot, 732 F.3d
1307, 1310 (11th Cir. 2013).
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Norman’s
motion to withdraw his plea of guilt. Norman was required to establish that there
was a “fair and just reason” for doing so. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). In pleading
guilty, Norman had the close assistance of counsel, and district court was entitled
to find that his plea was knowing and voluntary. Buckles, 843 F.2d at 471–72;
United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d 796, 801 (11th Cir. 1987). Norman’s
statements under oath during his plea colloquy also enjoy a strong presumption of
truthfulness. United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir. 1994). Norman
stated under oath that he understood that he should not plead guilty based on any
Case: 14-11973 Date Filed: 03/09/2016 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
estimate that anyone had given him about the sentencing guideline range that
would apply to him. His counsel’s prediction of his potential sentence did not
establish a fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea of guilt. United States v.
Pease, 240 F.3d 938, 940–41 (11th Cir. 2001).
Norman also concedes that his argument about whether the district court
should have classified him as a career offender is foreclosed by our binding
precedents, United States v. Jones, 910 F.2d 760, 761 (11th Cir. 1990); United
States v. Tamayo, 80 F.3d 1514, 1522 (11th Cir. 1996); United States v. Elliot, 732
F.3d 1307, 1310–12 (11th Cir. 2013).
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 14-11973 Date Filed: 03/09/2016 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --