United States of America v. JERALD PETER D’SOUZA, a.k.a. peter2033

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERALD PETER D’SOUZA, a.k.a.
peter2033,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 12-10156
D.C. No. 2:09-cr-00131-MCE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 18, 2013**
Before: TALLMAN, M. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Jerald Peter D’Souza appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying
his pro se motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
JUN 24 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

12-10156 2
D’Souza pleaded guilty to use of a facility of interstate commerce to
induce a minor to engage in criminal sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2422(b). D’Souza did not file a direct appeal, and over one year after he was
sentenced, he filed the instant motion to withdraw his guilty plea under Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, challenging the factual basis underlying his guilty
plea. The district court denied the motion.
The district court properly denied D’Souza’s motion because Rule 11 does
not permit a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea after sentencing. See Fed. R.
Crim. P. 11(e) (“After the court imposes sentence, the defendant may not withdraw
a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and the plea may be set aside only on direct
appeal or collateral attack.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --