United States of America v. Christopher Plooster

1The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern
District of Iowa.
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
________________
No. 06-2687
________________
United States of America,
Appellee,
v.
Christopher Plooster,
Appellant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Appeal from the United States
District Court for the
Northern District of Iowa.
[UNPUBLISHED]
________________
Submitted: April 9, 2007
Filed: April 13, 2007
________________
Before MELLOY, BOWMAN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
________________
PER CURIAM.
Christopher Plooster appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Plooster pled guilty to
conspiracy to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of
a school, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846, 860, possession with intent to

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine within 1,000 feet of a school, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 860, and possession of a firearm in furtherance
of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The plea
agreement specifically acknowledged that Plooster was subject to enhanced penalties
under 21 U.S.C. § 851.
Nearly nine months after entering his guilty plea but before he was sentenced,
Plooster filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11(d), based on the following reasons: (1) his attorney ineffectively
represented him in a number of respects; (2) the attorney-client relationship between
Plooster and his attorney had broken down prior to his guilty plea; and (3) he was not
aware that a notice of an enhanced sentence, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851, had been
filed against him until after he had pled guilty. The district court held a hearing and
denied the motion in a 21-page order. Plooster argues that the district court abused
its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for an abuse of
discretion. United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d 824, 826 (8th Cir. 2006).
Pursuant to Rule 11(d), a guilty plea may be withdrawn before sentencing if the
defendant can show a “fair and just reason” for doing so. Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(d)(2)(B); United States v. Mugan, 441 F.3d 622, 630-31 (8th Cir. 2006), cert.
denied, --- U.S. ---, 127 S. Ct. 191 (2006). “While the standard is liberal, the
defendant has no automatic right to withdraw a plea.” Ramirez-Hernandez, 449 F.3d
at 826. Having carefully reviewed the record, the applicable legal authorities and the
thorough and well-reasoned order of the district court, we agree with the district court
that Plooster did not establish a “fair and just reason” for withdrawing his guilty plea.
Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision and affirm
its judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --