United States v. Buck, No. 11-1079 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing, and obtaining a named female victim and others for labor and services in violation 18 U.S.C. 1590 and 1594. Defendant appealed. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea; the district court did not abuse its discretion by not appointing new counsel for defendant in the withdrawal hearing; and defendant's argument, to apply a concurrent sentence because the district court's written judgment and oral pronouncement conflicted, was rejected because the intent easily discerned from a careful reading of the pronouncement was consistent with the judgment and order of commitment entered by the sentencing judge.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. District court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea as the record showed he received effective assistance of counsel and was not coerced into a plea; nor was there any basis to conclude that defendant's plea was not made voluntarily and knowingly; plea had a factual basis; district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for appointment of new counsel where defendant had received effective assistance and made a knowing choice to proceed pro se; court's sentencing intent was evident from its oral pronouncement, and there was no conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written sentence.
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.