United States v. Sparks. 67 F.3d 1145, 1153-54 (4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Lambert. 994 F.2d 1088, 1093 (4th Cir. 1993); United States v. Lambert 974 F.2d 1389, 1394-96 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc); United States v. McHan. 920 F.2d 244, 247 (4th Cir. 1990); United States v. Pitino. 887 F.2d 42, 46 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. DeFreitas, 865 F.2d 80, 82(4thCir. 1989). "The most important consideration in resolving a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is an evaluation of the Rule 11 colloquy at which the guilty plea was accepted."
United States v. Patterson, 20 F.3d 809, 813 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 841 (1994); United States v. Ingraham, 832 F.2d 229, 233 (1st Cir. 1987); United States v. Gutierrez, 696 F.2d 753, 754 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 909 and 461 U.S. 910 (1983). Elements relevant to a "signature quality" determination include the following: geographic location, United States v. Porter, 881 F.2d 878, 887 (10th Cir. 1989) (fact that all crimes took place in small rural Kansas communities relevant to "signature quality" determination); United States v. Stubbins, 887 F.2d 42, 44 (11th Cir. 1989) (that both offenses occurred at the same premises was probative of identity); the unusual quality of the crime, Patterson, 20 F.3d at 813 (fact that hijacking is an unusual crime was a relevant factor in "signature quality" determination); the skill necessary to commit the acts, United States v. Barrett, 539 F.2d 244, 248 (1st Cir. 1976) (ability to bypass burglar alarm a "distinctive feature" of crime); United States v. Garcia, 880 F.2d 1277, 1278 (11th Cir. 1989) (defendant's skill in forging documents relevant to show identity); or use of a distinctive device, United States v. Trenkler, 61 F.3d 45, 55 (1st Cir. 1995) (defendant's prior use of distinctive remote-control car bombs relevant in determining whether same person built both bombs); United States v. Andrini, 685 F.2d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 1982) (defendant's description of distinctive incendiary devise used in crime "sufficiently distinctive to show identity."). These enumerated elements relevant to a "signature quality" det
If the defendant can establish such a reason, the degree to which the government would be prejudiced by the withdrawal of the plea becomes relevant to the district court's decision as to whether to allow the withdrawal. See United States v. Pitino, 887 F.2d 42, 48-49 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Haley, 784 F.2d 1218, 1219 (4th Cir. 1986). When a defendant asserts poor or erroneous advice of his attorney as his reason for withdrawal, he must show that his attorney's performance was below an objective standard of reasonableness and that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, he would have pleaded not guilty and insisted on going to trial.
Among those arrested and later convicted was Pitino of the Greensboro circle. See United States v. Pitino, 887 F.2d 42 (4th Cir. 1989). Giunta and Fedino were jointly charged in two counts of a four-count indictment as co-conspirators to import and distribute more than one kilogram of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963 and §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(A), respectively, and Giunta was separately charged in two counts with telephone facilitation violations under 21 U.S.C. § 843(B).
Notably too, other courts have determined that differences in dialect do not amount to impossible interpreting scenarios. See Matias v. Sessions, 871 F.3d 65 (1st Cir. 2017) (due process challenge denied re interpretation in immigration proceedings involving speaker of Todos Santos Mam and Spanish-language interpreter); Kuqo v. Ashcroft, 391 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 2004) (applicant not denied due process where interpreter at asylum hearing spoke different dialect of Albanian language); United States v. Pitino, 887 F.2d 42, 47 (4th Cir. 1989) (refusing to set aside a guilty plea when the official interpreter and defendant were able to communicate with one another though the defendant spoke Sicilian dialect and the official interpreter spoke Italian); United States v. Mejia-Ruiz, 433 Fed.Appx. 455 (6th Cir. 2011) (no violation of constitutional rights involving speaker of Mayan dialect).
Citing no authority, Defendant's argument is unavailing. Although a defendant's mistake regarding the nature of the offense charged may be a basis for withdrawing a guilty plea, United States v. Nichols, 986 F.2d 1199, 1203 (8th Cir. 1993), Defendant seems to assert that he was mistaken about or not fully aware of the consequences of his plea, and so his plea was not made intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily. See United States v. Pitino, 887 F.2d 42, 48 (4th Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Rule 11 requires the Court to inquire as to the defendant's understanding as to the nature of the charge and consequences of his plea, as well as to satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the plea.
Fifth, prejudice to the government is only considered after a defendant has shown sufficient grounds for withdrawal. See United States v. Pitino, 887 F.2d 42, 49 (4th Cir. 1989). The court finds that no such showing has been made. Sixth and finally, a change of plea at this stage would inconvenience the court and waste judicial resources, as the court has already conducted a valid plea hearing.
The court understands that the plaintiff speaks a special Spanish dialect which makes it more difficult to understand the official interpreter; however, it is not impossible for the official interpreter to communicate with the plaintiff. See United States v. Pitino, 887 F.2d 42, 47 (1989) (refusing to set aside a guilty plea when the official interpreter and defendant were able to communicate with one another though the defendant spoke Sicilian dialect and the official interpreter spoke Italian). As such, the court finds that the Magistrate Judge's resolution of this problem by permitting the plaintiffs interpreter to be present outside of the deposition room is proper.
Mr. Smith also claims that his attorney, Bruce Carsia, never contacted him to prepare for trial. A defendant is not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea even though he claims that his attorney failed to familiarize himself with the facts of the case and did not investigate the possible defenses to the charges, especially if the defendant has been informed of the charges. United States v. Rowe, 677 F. Supp. 1327 (M.D.Pa. 1987); United States v. Pitino, 887 F.2d 42 (4th Cir. 1989) (withdrawal of plea denied because defendant failed to establish that attorney's lack of experience in federal criminal trial prejudiced him, that attorney misled him and his family, that attorney was unprepared for trial, or that attorney did not review evidence with defendant prior to plea). The hearing testimony clearly establishes that Mr. Carsia had numerous contacts with his client, Tr. 5, 27, that Mr. Smith was aware of the allegations in the indictment and understood the extent of the government's evidence against him, T. 26, and that Mr. Smith was satisfied with the job that Mr. Carsia had done for him. T. 5.