UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Alfredo DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant, Jose Nales, Tyrone Alston, Defendants, 607 F. App'x 112

Alfredo Davis appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Hellerstein, J.), convicting him, after a guilty plea, of robbery conspiracy and a related firearms offense. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review. A defendant who has pleaded guilty is entitled to withdraw that plea (prior to sentencing) if he can show a “fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(d).

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. United States v. Carreta, 583 F.3d 152, 157 (2d Cir.2009). Davis contends that his plea was involuntary. The district court’s conclusion to the contrary is well-supported by the record. During the plea hearing, Davis stated under oath that his plea was voluntary and not coerced. The fact that he may have pleaded guilty to avoid the risk of a lengthy post-trial sentence did not make the plea involuntary. Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 750, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970).

Davis argues that the plea was involuntary because the court advised him shortly before he entered the plea that a codefendant had made statements exculpating him; however, Davis was aware of those statements and the district court’s knowledge of those statements well in advance of the plea hearing. The district court also properly rejected Davis’s arguments that the plea was rendered invalid by Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2155, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013).

In anticipation of the result in Alleyne, the information charged brandishing as an element of the firearms offense; and, at the plea hearing, the government characterized brandishing as an element that it would have to prove at trial. Davis sufficiently alloeuted that he was guilty of that offense: he admitted that it was “part of the plan” for his cocon-spirator to carry a gun that would be brandished in the course of executing the robbery. See Rosemond v. United States, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1240, 1243, 188 L.Ed.2d 248 (2014).

For the foregoing reasons, and finding no merit in Davis’s other arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.