U.S. v. Reed

In prosecution on fraud charge stemming from scheme in which defendant induced others to spend between $10,000 and $50,000 to apply for opportunity to obtain between $50 million and $1 billion in loans under circumstances where defendant’s companies had no funds to lend, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea that was entered on 4^th day of trial. While defendant argued that said withdrawal was warranted because his attorney was so ill-prepared for trial that he had no other choice but to enter into said guilty plea, defendant was not entitled to withdraw his plea, since he indicated during his plea colloquy that he was fully satisfied with counsel and that his counsel was “excellent.” Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 64-month term of incarceration, even though defendant had claimed that Dist. Ct. had failed to consider his main arguments in mitigation. While Dist. Ct. had failed to orally mention said mitigation during sentencing hearing, it had discussed in some detail said argument during his written explanation for defendant’s sentence. (Partial Dissent filed.)