United States v. Kenneth Buholtz, 562 F. App'x 213

Buholtz pleaded guilty, under a plea agreement, to transporting a minor in interstate commerce with intent the minor engage in sexual activity.
District court conditionally accepted the guilty plea pending review of the Presentence Report.
Buholtz moved to withdraw his plea; the district court denied the motion.
This appeal challenges the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea.
The government waives any appellate waiver issue referenced in the plea agreement; Rule 11 governs withdrawal timing and standards.
The court ultimately affirms the district court’s denial of the withdrawal motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Buholtz have an absolute right to withdraw before acceptance?	Buholtz asserts an absolute right under Rule 11(d)(1).	Government argues no automatic right due to timing and conditional acceptance.	No absolute right; Rule 11 governs and conditional acceptance allows denial.
Was there plain error in denying withdrawal given the timing?	Buholtz contends plain error due to timing.	Government contends no clear or obvious error.	Plain error not shown; standard reviewed under Puckett/Judicial discretion.
Did the Carr factors support or defeat withdrawal as an abuse of discretion?	Carr factors support withdrawal.	Most factors weigh against withdrawal.	District court did not abuse its discretion in denying withdrawal.
Does the government’s stipulation about waiver affect the appeal?	N/A (not argued on appeal).	N/A.	Not necessary to resolve due to waiver being waived by government.

United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670 (2007) (guilty pleas can be accepted while plea agreements are deferred)
United States v. Arami, 536 F.3d 479 (5th Cir. 2008) (absolute right to withdraw before acceptance; plain error review if not raised)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain-error standard for withdrawal issues)
United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339 (5th Cir. 1980) (factors for fair and just withdrawal; abuse of discretion standard)
United States v. McKnight, 570 F.3d 641 (5th Cir. 2009) (review of denial of withdrawal for abuse of discretion; counsel assistance relevant)
United States v. Badger, 925 F.2d 101 (5th Cir. 1991) (Carr factors weigh against withdrawal)
United States v. Clark, 931 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1991) (prejudice to government justifies remaining plea)
United States v. Ogle, 415 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2005) (waiver issues; appellate review limits)
United States v. Story, 439 F.3d 226 (5th Cir. 2006) (appellate waiver issue potentially waived by government)