USA v. Arias, No. 21-40097 (5th Cir. 2021)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-40097 Document: 00516148408 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/29/2021 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED December 29, 2021 No. 21-40097 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Irving Ernesto Arias, Defendant—Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:19-CR-14-7 Before Owen, Chief Judge, and Southwick and Wilson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Irving Ernesto Arias pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to possess fifty grams or more of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 262 * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-40097 Document: 00516148408 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/29/2021 No. 21-40097 months’ imprisonment and a five-year term of supervised release. He challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to withdraw his plea. District courts are given “broad discretion” with respect to their rulings on motions to withdraw pleas. United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 1984) (quoting United States v. Morrow, 537 F.2d 120, 146 (5th Cir. 1976)). We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea for abuse of this discretion. United States v. Lord, 915 F.3d 1009, 1013 (5th Cir. 2019). “[A] district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. at 101314 (quoting United States v. Powell, 354 F.3d 362, 370 (5th Cir. 2003)). When considering Arias’s motion, the district court conducted an exhaustive analysis of the Carr factors. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion in light of these factors shows no abuse of discretion, and Arias’s arguments to the contrary are not persuasive. AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.