Re-affirming the Primacy of the Buckles Factors:
The Heavy Burden for Withdrawing a Guilty Plea in United States v. Andre Lorquet

Introduction

Case Overview. In United States v. Andre Lorquet, the Eleventh Circuit revisited the already demanding standard defendants face when attempting to withdraw a guilty plea after acceptance but before sentencing. The defendant, Andre Lorquet, pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Months later—after learning that the Presentence Investigation Report recommended an obstruction-of-justice enhancement and denied an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction—he asked to withdraw his plea, alleging coercion by counsel and lack of understanding due to a learning disability.

On appeal, Lorquet challenged the district court’s denial of his withdrawal motion. The Eleventh Circuit, sitting on the non-argument calendar, affirmed in a per curiam unpublished opinion. Although unpublished, the decision is a useful roadmap for practitioners because it synthesizes the circuit’s prior precedents, clarifies how the Buckles factors operate, and underscores the evidentiary burdens borne by defendants who contradict their own sworn plea-colloquy statements.

Summary of the Judgment

1. Standard of Review. The court applied abuse-of-discretion review to the district court’s denial of Lorquet’s Rule 11(d)(2)(B) motion.
2. Application of Buckles.

• Factor 1 – Close assistance of counsel: The defendant had declared under oath at the Rule 11 hearing that he reviewed the plea with counsel and was satisfied. His later allegation of coercion lacked corroboration and was deemed not credible.
• Factor 2 – Knowing and voluntary plea: The magistrate judge conducted a thorough colloquy; Lorquet confirmed no threats or promises beyond the agreement. His post-hoc assertions were contradicted by the record.
• Factors 3 and 4 – Conservation of judicial resources & prejudice to the government: Because the first two factors weighed heavily against withdrawal, the court—following Gonzalez-Mercado—gave limited attention to the remaining factors.

3. Timing Consideration. The six-month gap and the fact that the motion coincided with unfavorable guideline findings suggested strategic regret rather than a “swift change of heart.”

Finding no arbitrariness, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment and Lorquet’s conviction stands.

In-Depth Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469 (11th Cir. 1988) – Provides the four-factor framework for evaluating withdrawal motions. Lorquet’s case reiterates that factors one and two (counsel & voluntariness) carry the most weight.
• United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185 (11th Cir. 1994) – Establishes the “strong presumption” of truthfulness attaching to sworn plea-colloquy statements. The court leaned heavily on Medlock to discount Lorquet’s later contradictory testimony.
• United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1987) – Holds that when the first two Buckles factors cut against withdrawal, the court need not scrutinize the remaining two. This principle was expressly invoked to streamline the analysis.
• United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2006) & United States v. Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2001) – Provide the “abuse of discretion” articulation: only an arbitrary or unreasonable denial warrants reversal.
• United States v. Rogers, 848 F.2d 166 (11th Cir. 1988) – Assigns the “heavy burden” to defendants contradicting their own sworn testimony.
• United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860 (11th Cir. 2022) – Recites the forfeiture/abandonment rule for arguments omitted from the opening brief. Several of Lorquet’s factual contentions were deemed abandoned under this rule.

Legal Reasoning of the Court

The panel’s reasoning unfolds in three logical steps:

1. Calibration of Standard. Emphasizing the deference built into “abuse of discretion,” the court framed its inquiry around arbitrariness rather than independent fact-finding.
2. Credibility & Evidentiary Weighing. Relying on the presumption of truthfulness, the court treated the plea-colloquy transcript as near-dispositive evidence. Lorquet’s bare, self-interested assertions were insufficient to overcome that presumption without corroboration.
3. Application of the Buckles Framework. The first two factors resolved the case; thus, consistent with Gonzalez-Mercado, the panel declined to dwell on governmental prejudice or judicial economy, though it noted those considerations also favored affirmance.

Impact on Future Litigation

Although unpublished and therefore non-binding, Lorquet:

• Re-affirms the dominance of factors 1 & 2. Future defense counsel should recognize that unless they can undermine the “close assistance” and “knowing & voluntary” prongs with tangible evidence, their withdrawal motions are unlikely to succeed.
• Highlights strategic timing pitfalls. Motions filed only after adverse guideline recommendations are viewed skeptically as tactical rather than genuine.
• Elevates the importance of plea-colloquy precision. Prosecutors and judges can rely on a well-constructed Rule 11 colloquy to insulate convictions from collateral attack.
• Signals strict abandonment doctrine enforcement. Appellants who omit factual threads in their opening brief risk total forfeiture, even in the context of “plain error” review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Rule 11(d)(2)(B), Fed. R. Crim. P. – Allows withdrawal of a guilty plea after acceptance but before sentencing if the defendant shows a “fair and just reason.”
• Abuse of Discretion. – A deferential appellate standard; the trial court must have acted irrationally, arbitrarily, or outside the bounds of reasoned decision-making to be reversed.
• Plea Colloquy. – A courtroom Q&A in which the judge ensures the defendant understands the rights waived and that the plea is voluntary. Statements made here are under oath.
• Buckles Factors.
  1. Close assistance of counsel
  2. Knowing & voluntary plea
  3. Conservation of judicial resources
  4. Prejudice to the government
  All must be weighed, but the first two are usually decisive.
• Non-Argument Calendar. – The case is resolved without oral argument because the panel finds it straightforward under existing law.

Conclusion

United States v. Andre Lorquet is a powerful reminder that withdrawing a guilty plea faces “Herculean” obstacles in the Eleventh Circuit. The decision fortifies the presumption that sworn plea statements are truthful, underscores counsel’s obligation to create a clear record at the Rule 11 hearing, and warns defendants that belated claims of coercion untethered from objective evidence are unlikely to prevail. In the broader jurisprudential landscape, Lorquet adds weight—albeit unpublished—to a consistent line of authority that prioritizes the finality of pleas, conserves judicial resources, and preserves the integrity of the criminal justice process.