United States v. Gregory Blander, 713 F. App'x 431

Background

In Feb 2015 Akron officers arrested Gregory Blander at a nightclub and found a loaded .380 Ruger with an obliterated serial number in his right front pocket; Blander initially gave a false name. He was later charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) as a felon in possession of a firearm.
Blander pleaded guilty without a plea agreement on Feb 26, 2016 after a Rule 11 colloquy in which he acknowledged having the firearm and stated he understood his rights and the consequences of pleading guilty. Counsel affirmed Blander’s competence and satisfaction with representation.
Nearly ten months later (Dec 2016) Blander first asserted that the gun belonged to a friend and that he took it to "secure the situation," and he sought to withdraw his guilty plea on that basis. The district court postponed sentencing, allowed a written motion, and then denied the motion at a second sentencing hearing.
The district court applied the Bashara factors (considering delay, reason for delay, maintenance of innocence, circumstances of plea, defendant’s background, prior experience, and prejudice to government) and found denial appropriate based on long unjustified delay, lack of earlier assertion of innocence, plea circumstances, and criminal history/experience.
The court sentenced Blander to 96 months’ imprisonment (after a downward variance) and three years’ supervised release; Blander appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw the plea.
The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the Bashara factors and that any minor factual misstatement about Blander’s plea colloquy was harmless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion denying motion to withdraw plea under Rule 11(d)(2)(B)	Motion denial proper; court reasonably weighed Bashara factors and rejected withdrawal	Blander argued the court overweighted delay, ignored his reasons for delay, misread his plea colloquy, overstated his criminal experience, omitted factors, and applied a presumption against withdrawal	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; delay, lack of maintained innocence, plea circumstances, and prior experience supported denial
Whether the long delay between plea and motion was given undue weight	Court properly treated delay as a significant factor and weighed it with others	Blander said sentencing continuances meant he moved at first court appearance after plea, so delay is excused	Court held delay (~9.5 months) was properly weighed against defendant; continuances did not excuse failure to file earlier
Whether the district court erred in finding Blander failed to maintain innocence	Court found Blander never asserted innocence earlier and only admitted elements at plea	Blander said his colloquy only admitted elements, not assent to the government’s narrative	Any mistaken characterization of colloquy was harmless because other evidence showed he did not maintain innocence until months later
Whether defendant’s prior state-court experience should be disregarded	Court considered prior criminal experience relevant and weighed against withdrawal	Blander argued state experience is not equivalent to federal experience and shouldn't count	Court held state criminal experience is relevant; experience weighed against leniency in withdrawal

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Bashara, 27 F.3d 1174 (6th Cir. 1994) (sets out non‑exclusive factors for evaluating motions to withdraw guilty pleas)
United States v. Ellis, 470 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2006) (describes that withdrawal should be allowed when plea entered with unsure heart; affirms deference to district court’s weighing)
United States v. Bazzi, 94 F.3d 1025 (6th Cir. 1996) (motion to withdraw plea reviewed for abuse of discretion; factors non‑exclusive)
United States v. Baez, 87 F.3d 805 (6th Cir. 1996) (short delays more likely to favor withdrawal; unjustified delay can alone support denial)
United States v. Valdez, 362 F.3d 903 (6th Cir. 2004) (delay between plea and motion can support denial of withdrawal)
United States v. Head, 927 F.2d 1361 (6th Cir. 1991) (plea withdrawal before sentencing is within district court’s broad discretion)
United States v. Spencer, 836 F.2d 236 (6th Cir. 1987) (discusses standards and considerations for plea withdrawal)
United States v. Haygood, 549 F.3d 1049 (6th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard: clearly erroneous findings or improper legal standard)