United States v. Eric Michael

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Eric Michael

6 F. App'x 510

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedMarch 27, 2001

Docket00-2253

StatusUnpublished

This text of 6 F. App'x 510 (United States v. Eric Michael) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Eric Michael, 6 F. App'x 510 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Eric Michael pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U .S.C. § 846, and was sentenced to 168 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. Michael filed a presentencing motion to withdraw his plea, alleging that the government had acted in bad faith by causing him to plead guilty pursuant to a plea agreement which did not include a substantial-assistance downward-departure provision, and withholding a plea agreement which did include such a provision, despite Michael’s proffer of information to authorities. The district court 1 denied his motion, concluding after a hearing that Michael had not carried his burden to present a fair and just reason for plea withdrawal. On appeal, Michael’s counsel challenges the denial of the plea-withdrawal motion. We grant Michael’s request to file a second pro se supplemental brief, and we have considered his two pro se briefs.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Michael’s plea-withdrawal motion. See United States v. Knight, 96 F.3d 307, 309 (8th Cir.1996) (standard of review; defendant who asserted that government promised to file departure motion did not demonstrate fair and just reason where promise was not contained in written plea agreement, and defendant had acknowledged that written agreement covered his entire understanding with government), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1180, 117 S.Ct. 1458, 137 L.Ed.2d 562 (1997); United States v. Kelly, 18 F.3d 612, 618-19 (8th Cir.1994) (district court did not abuse discretion in denying plea-withdrawal motion premised on government’s refusal to move for substantial-assistance downward departure where government did not breach plea agreement or unconstitutionally withhold motion). We have considered each of Michael’s pro se arguments and find them meritless.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Eric Michael pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U .S.C. § 846, and was sentenced to 168 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. Michael filed a presentencing motion to withdraw his plea, alleging that the government had acted in bad faith by causing him to plead guilty pursuant to a plea agreement which did not include a substantial-assistance downward-departure provision, and withholding a plea agreement which did include such a provision, despite Michael’s proffer of information to authorities. The district court 1 denied his motion, concluding after a hearing that Michael had not carried his burden to present a fair and just reason for plea withdrawal. On appeal, Michael’s counsel challenges the denial of the plea-withdrawal motion. We grant Michael’s request to file a second pro se supplemental brief, and we have considered his two pro se briefs.

We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Michael’s plea-withdrawal motion. See United States v. Knight, 96 F.3d 307, 309 (8th Cir.1996) (standard of review; defendant who asserted that government promised to file departure motion did not demonstrate fair and just reason where promise was not contained in written plea agreement, and defendant had acknowledged that written agreement covered his entire understanding with government), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1180, 117 S.Ct. 1458, 137 L.Ed.2d 562 (1997); United States v. Kelly, 18 F.3d 612, 618-19 (8th Cir.1994) (district court did not abuse discretion in denying plea-withdrawal motion premised on government’s refusal to move for substantial-assistance downward departure where government did not breach plea agreement or unconstitutionally withhold motion). We have considered each of Michael’s pro se arguments and find them meritless.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

1

. The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 F. App'x 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-eric-michael-ca8-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack