USA V. CHRISTINA WILLIAMS, No. 18-10402 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JAN 30 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-10402 D.C. No. 1:13-cr-267-LJO-SKO-2 v. MEMORANDUM* CHRISTINA WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted January 21, 2020 San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,** District Judge. Defendant Christina Williams appeals the denial of her motion to withdraw her guilty plea to one count of conspiring to buy, receive, alter, and pass counterfeited U.S. obligations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. We have * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for the District of Montana, sitting by designation. 1 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. A guilty plea may be withdrawn before sentencing if “the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “Fair and just reasons for withdrawal include inadequate Rule 11 plea colloquies, newly discovered evidence, intervening circumstances, or any other reason for withdrawing the plea that did not exist when the defendant entered his plea.” United States v. Ortega-Ascanio, 376 F.3d 879, 883 (9th Cir. 2004). However, the inquiry is fact-specific, and each case must be considered in context. United States v. McTiernan, 546 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008). Further, “[o]nce the plea is accepted, permitting withdrawal is, as it ought to be, the exception, not an automatic right.” United States v. Ensminger, 567 F.3d 587, 593 (9th Cir. 2009). Williams argues that her post-plea rehabilitation is a “fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). However, assuming a defendant’s post-plea rehabilitation may be a “fair and just reason” in some circumstances, it does not justify withdrawal of Williams’s guilty plea in this case. Williams’s turnaround is extraordinary. But three factors weigh against permitting the withdrawal: (1) the five-year delay between her guilty plea and motion to withdraw, (2) the prejudice the government would face having to go to trial after that much time has elapsed, and (3) the unfairness to Williams’s co-defendant who 2 discharged his custodial sentence having pled guilty in a package plea deal. On this record, granting Williams’s motion to withdraw her guilty plea would have been an abuse of discretion, and the district court properly denied it. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
