United States v. Michael Giorgio, 802 F.3d 845

Michael Giorgio, former CFO of Suarez Corporation, pleaded guilty to making corporate campaign contributions in the names of employees (straw donors) after agreeing with company owner Benjamin Suarez to reimburse employee donations.
Giorgio entered a plea two weeks before trial, admitting guilt, agreeing to testify, and waiving most appellate rights; the goal was a reduced sentence via cooperation.
A jury later acquitted Suarez and the company on the campaign-finance charges; Giorgio’s testimony was viewed as equivocal and the government declined to move for a substantial-assistance sentence reduction.
Giorgio moved twice to withdraw his guilty plea: first claiming his trial counsel (Walter Haverfield) had a conflict because the company paid the firm; second claiming the government breached the plea by refusing to seek a downward departure under U.S.S.G. §5K1.1.
The district court denied both motions, found no actual conflict of interest that impaired representation, and concluded the government had discretion not to move for a §5K1.1 reduction; it nonetheless varied downward and sentenced Giorgio to 27 months.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reviewed denial of plea withdrawal for abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Issue	Giorgio's Argument	Government's/Respondent's Argument	Held
Whether Giorgio could withdraw his plea based on counsel conflict arising from firm being paid by the company	Firm’s fee arrangement created a conflict that rendered the plea involuntary	No actual conflict impaired representation; firm represented Giorgio’s interests and advised competently	Court affirmed denial: no abuse of discretion; record showed no impairment of interests
Whether Giorgio could withdraw plea because the government breached plea by not moving for a §5K1.1 substantial-assistance reduction	Government promised or effectively obligated to move for a reduction; refusal breached plea	Plea agreement used discretionary language (“may”); government lawfully declined based on Giorgio’s equivocal testimony and inconsistent conduct	Court affirmed denial: government had discretion and gave non‑punitive, legitimate reasons for declining to move

Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162 (2002) (potential conflict does not require relief absent showing of actual impairment)
Wood v. Georgia, 450 U.S. 261 (1981) (court may evaluate conflict claims from the record without a formal hearing in some circumstances)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (breach of plea agreement may warrant relief when promise is broken)
Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181 (1992) (prosecutor’s refusal to move for downward departure must not be based on unconstitutional motives)
Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (defendant challenging plea based on counsel error must show reasonable probability he would not have pleaded guilty)
United States v. Quinlan, 473 F.3d 273 (6th Cir. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion standard and factors for plea-withdrawal motions)
United States v. Osborne, 402 F.3d 626 (6th Cir. 2005) (formal inquiry required in joint-representation conflict situations)