USA v. Lefere

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 23-208
IRVIN J. LEFERE, JR. 	SECTION “R” (4)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant Irvin Lefere’s motion to withdraw his
guilty plea. 1 	The Government opposes the motion. 2 	For the following
reasons, the Court denies defendant’s motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On July 31, 2024, Lefere, represented by an assistant public defender
present, pled guilty to one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm
and ammunition. 3 	In the re-arraignment proceeding, the Court informed
Lefere that the count carried a statutory maximum sentence of 15 years
imprisonment and a fine not to exceed $250,000. 4 The defendant affirmed
that he understood that the sentence the Court imposed could be different
from any estimate provided by his lawyer and that the Court could impose a
sentence outside of the guideline range after accounting for “all of the
1 	R. Doc. 47.
2 	R. Doc. 53.
3 	Transcript of Rearraignment Proceedings, R. Doc. 52, at 3.
4 	Id.
Case 2:23-cr-00208-SSV-KWR Document 56 Filed 11/17/25 Page 1 of 8

2
relevant facts.” 5 Lefere also affirmed that he understood that the Court could
impose the maximum sentence the Court described to him. 6 	At the
conclusion of the rearraignment hearing, the Court asked Lefere if he fully
understood the consequences of pleading guilty, to which Lefere said “I’m
sure a maximum penalty of 15 years.” 7 The Court then asked whether Lefere
was pleading guilty because he was, in fact, guilty, to which Lefere responded
“I’m pleading guilty because I’m, in fact, guilty.” 8
The Court further explained to Lefere that in connection with the
sentencing, the Court would order a presentence investigation report (PSR).
The 	Court 	confirmed 	that 	Lefere 	understood 	that 	he 	would 	have 	an
opportunity to review the report and object to either the facts or conclusions
within it. 9
On October 1, 2024, Probation issued a draft PSR. 10 The defendant did
not object to the PSR; Probation released a final PSR on October 22, 2024. 11
That same day, defendant’s initial assistant public defender withdrew from
5 	Id. at 6.
6 	Id.
7 	Id. at 14.
8 	Id.
9 	Id. at 15.
10 	R. Doc. 28.
11 	R. Doc. 29.
Case 2:23-cr-00208-SSV-KWR Document 56 Filed 11/17/25 Page 2 of 8

3
representation; the Court appointed current defense counsel on October 24,
2024.
The sentencing has since been continued four times, each time on
defense counsel’s motion for additional time to “address the defendant’s
concerns.” 12 It is currently set for January 21, 2026.
Lefere now moves to withdraw his guilty plea. 	Lefere asserts that
“enhancements, offense characteristics, and aggravating facts not contained
in the stipulated Factual Basis, nor admitted to by Mr. Lefere at the plea
hearing” were incorporated into the PSR. 13 In the signed factual basis, Lefere
acknowledged 	that 	the 	limited 	purpose 	of 	the 	factual 	basis 	was 	to
demonstrate a sufficient basis for Lefere’s guilty plea and that the document
“does not contain all information known to the defendant about the charged
conduct.” 14 Lefere asserts that because of the PSR’s inclusion of facts not in
the Factual Basis, and the impact on the Guidelines sentencing range, his
plea was neither knowing nor voluntary.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B) permits a defendant to
withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing if he shows a “fair and just reason
12 	R. Docs. 33, 37, 42, 45.
13 	R. Doc. 47.
14 	R. Doc. 26, at 2.
Case 2:23-cr-00208-SSV-KWR Document 56 Filed 11/17/25 Page 3 of 8

4
for requesting the withdrawal.” A defendant does not have an “absolute right
to withdraw” a guilty plea. 	United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th
Cir. 2003).
The Fifth Circuit applies the seven-factor test in United States v. Carr,
740 F.2d 339, 343-44 (5th Cir. 1984), to determine whether a defendant has
shown a “fair and just reason.” United States v. Harrison, 777 F.3d 227 (5th
Cir. 2015). 	The court must consider: 1) whether a defendant asserts his
innocence; 2) whether the withdrawal would cause the government to suffer
prejudice; 	3) 	the 	defendant’s 	delay 	in 	filing 	the 	motion; 	4) 	whether
withdrawal would inconvenience the court; 5) whether close assistance of
counsel was available; 6) whether the original plea was knowing and
voluntary; and 7) whether withdrawal would waste judicial resources. Id. at
234. The district court need not make findings as to each factor but should
decide based on the totality of the circumstances. Id. An evidentiary hearing
on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is required only when the defendant
alleges sufficient facts that, if proven, would justify relief under Carr. Id.
III. 	DISCUSSION
The Court finds it appropriate to address the motion to withdraw the
guilty plea on the pleadings because Lefere has not alleged sufficient facts
that, if proven, would justify relief. Id. Here, each of the Carr factors weighs
Case 2:23-cr-00208-SSV-KWR Document 56 Filed 11/17/25 Page 4 of 8

5
against permitting the withdrawal. 	Lefere has not asserted his innocence,
which weighs toward denial of the withdrawal. The withdrawal would cause
the Government to suffer prejudice, as the Government would have to
prepare for a trial after more than a year of reliance on the defendant’s guilty
plea as obviating the need to prepare for trial. This factor, too, weighs toward
denying the withdrawal.
Further, the defendant delayed in filing his motion, which again weighs
toward denial. 	The motion to withdraw came eleven months after the
issuance of the final PSR and the appointment of current counsel. 15 The Fifth
Circuit has weighed delays of five days, twenty-two days, and six weeks
against defendants; the eleven months at issue here certainly qualify. 	See,
e.g., id. at 237; United States v. Conroy, 567 F.3d 174, 179 (5th Cir. 2009);
Carr, 740 F.2d at 345. Fourth, withdrawal would inconvenience the Court,
which has a busy docket and trial schedule. See, e.g., Harrison, 777 F.3d at
231.
Lefere has also not alleged the absence of close assistance of counsel,
and he was represented by counsel at his rearraignment. 	During the
rearraignment, Lefere affirmed that he was “satisfied with the advice and
15 	R. Docs. 28, 47.
Case 2:23-cr-00208-SSV-KWR Document 56 Filed 11/17/25 Page 5 of 8

6
services of [his] lawyer” when asked by the Court. 16 	As to assistance of
counsel, Lefere alleges only that the “unforeseen PSR issues could not have
been anticipated.” 17 	This is patently false. 	Lefere could have made an
objection to the pre-sentence report when probation filed the draft report on
October 1, 2024. 	Lefere had the assistance of the federal public defender
during the initial objection period for the draft PSR. Additionally, while not
a factor in the plea withdrawal analysis, the Court notes that it has provided
Lefere with three additional months in which to make objections to the pre-
sentence investigation report. 18
Further, Lefere’s plea was knowing and voluntary, which strongly
weighs against withdrawal. 	In the Fifth Circuit, a plea is knowing and
voluntary if the defendant is “advised of and understand[s] the consequences
of the plea.” United States v. Landreneau, 967 F.3d 443, 450 (5th Cir. 2020)
(quoting United States v. Williams, 116 F. App’x 539, 540 (5th Cir. 2004)
(per curiam)). 	A defendant’s statement that a plea was knowing and
voluntary, like the statement made by Lefere during his re-arraignment,
creates a presumption that the plea is valid. 19 United States v. Washington,
16 	R. Doc. 52, at 11.
17 	R. Doc. 47.
18 	R. Doc. 50.
19 	Transcript of Rearraignment Proceedings, R. Doc. 52, at 3.
Case 2:23-cr-00208-SSV-KWR Document 56 Filed 11/17/25 Page 6 of 8

7
480 F.3d 309, 316 (5th Cir. 2007). To know the consequences of the guilty
plea, the defendant must know the maximum prison term and fine for the
offense. 	Williams, 116 F. App’x at 540; United States v. Rivera, 898 F.2d
442, 447 (5th Cir. 1990) (“The consequences of a guilty plea, with respect to
sentencing, mean only that the defendant must know the maximum prison
term and fine for the offense charged.”) (quoting Barbee v. Ruth, 678 F.2d
634, 635 (5th Cir. 1982). Lefere knew the maximum fine and prison term;
indeed, he stated that it was fifteen years during the rearraignment.
Lefere asserts that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he
did not expect the PSR to use information beyond that in the factual basis.
Such an expectation was unreasonable, particularly given his colloquy with
the Court about the PSR and that the Court could impose a sentence different
from the guidelines sentence after accounting for “all of the relevant facts.” 20
Moreover, in signing the factual basis, Lefere acknowledged that it did “not
contain 	all 	information 	known 	to 	the 	government 	about 	the 	charged
conduct.” 21 	His asserted expectation that the PSR would contain only
information from the factual basis does not change that the record reflects
that Lefere knew the consequences of his guilty plea, including the maximum
20 	Id. at 6.
21 	R. Doc. 26.
Case 2:23-cr-00208-SSV-KWR Document 56 Filed 11/17/25 Page 7 of 8

8
prison term and fine for the offense. 	Finally, Lefere’s withdrawal would
waste judicial resources because it would require repetition of the scheduling
and trial preparation the court undertook prior to Lefere’s entry of the plea.
Each of the Carr factors weighs against Lefere having a “fair and just
reason” 	to 	withdraw 	his 	plea 	of 	guilty. 	In 	sum, 	the 	totality 	of 	the
circumstances show that Lefere has not pled a fair and just reason for
withdrawal. Therefore, the Court denies Lefere’s motion to withdraw.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Lefere’s motion to
withdraw plea of guilty.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of November, 2025.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:23-cr-00208-SSV-KWR Document 56 Filed 11/17/25 Page 8 of 8