Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Luis Alberto Hagen-Porras

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-41604
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
LUIS ALBERTO HAGEN-PORRAS
Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:06-CR-576-2
Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Luis Alberto Hagen-Porras appeals his guilty-plea
conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Hagen-Porras
contends that the district court abused its discretion in not allowing him to
withdraw his plea and that his conviction should be reversed because his plea
was not knowing and voluntary. Hagen-Porras insists that he is innocent and
that he pleaded guilty under pressure from his trial attorney in the mistaken
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 21, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 06-41604
2
belief that he was certain to be convicted and certain to receive the ten-year
mandatory minimum sentence if he proceeded to trial.
We review a district court’s denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir.
2003). When determining whether to allow a defendant to withdraw his guilty
plea, the district court should consider if: (1) the defendant asserted his
innocence, (2) withdrawal would prejudice the government, (3) the defendant
delayed in filing his withdrawal motion, (4) withdrawal would substantially
inconvenience the court, (5) close assistance of counsel was available, (6) the
original plea was knowing and voluntary, and (7) withdrawal would waste
judicial resources. See United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-34 (5th Cir.
1984). The defendant has the burden of establishing a fair and just reason for
withdrawing his plea. See United States v. Still, 102 F.3d 118, 124 (5th Cir.
1996). The decision whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a plea is based
on the totality of the circumstances. See Powell, 354 F.3d at 370.
In this case, the district court denied Hagen-Porras’s motion to withdraw
his plea after finding that his plea was knowing and voluntary and that his
attorney represented him zealously. Hagen-Porras has not shown that these
findings are incorrect. See Still, 102 F.3d at 124. The district court’s judgment
is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --