United States v. Lam Peralta, 112519 FED2, 18-3290-cr
|Party Name:||United States of America, Appellee, v. Marco Antonio Lam Peralta, AKA Marco Antonio Lam, AKA Tony Lam, AKA Alex Lam, AKA Marco Antonio Lamperalta, AKA Anthony Lam, AKA Marco Lam Defendant-Appellant, Diego Walther Anibal Mejia Paredes, Defendant.|
|Attorney:||Appearing for Appellee: MICHAEL P. DRESCHER (Gregory L. Waples, on the brief) for Christina E. Nolan, United States Attorney for the District of Vermont, Burlington, VT. Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: DAVID J. WILLIAMS, Jarvis, McArthur & Williams, Burlington, VT.|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, PETER W. HALL, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||November 25, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION "SUMMARY ORDER"). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 25th day of November, two thousand nineteen.
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Sessions, J.).
Appearing for Appellee: MICHAEL P. DRESCHER (Gregory L. Waples, on the brief) for Christina E. Nolan, United States Attorney for the District of Vermont, Burlington, VT.
Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: DAVID J. WILLIAMS, Jarvis, McArthur & Williams, Burlington, VT.
PRESENT: ROBERT D. SACK, PETER W. HALL, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment is AFFIRMED.
Defendant-Appellant Marco Antonio Lam Peralta ("Lam") appeals from a July 9, 2019, judgment, following a guilty plea, sentencing him to 120-months imprisonment. On appeal, Lam argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B). We assume the parties' familiarity with the facts, record of prior proceedings, and arguments on appeal, which we reference only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permit a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing when "the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal." Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). In evaluating whether a defendant meets Rule 11(d)(2)(B)'s "fair and just" standard, courts consider, inter alia: "(1) whether the defendant has asserted his or...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP