UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Christopher PLOOSTER, Appellant, 221 F. App'x 478

PER CURIAM. Christopher Plooster appeals the district court’s 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 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 Pursuant to Rule 11(d), a guilty plea may be withdrawn before sentencing if the defendant can show a “fair and just reason” for doing so.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, 166 L.Ed.2d 157 (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. .

The Honorable Mark W. Bennett, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.