United States v. Salahudin Shaheed, 688 F. App'x 120

Defendant Salahudin Shaheed pled guilty at the start of trial to (1) conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, (2) attempted Hobbs Act robbery, and (3) federal kidnapping after a codefendant pled guilty.
More than two months after pleading guilty but before sentencing, Shaheed filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea; the district court appointed new counsel and held a two-day evidentiary hearing.
Shaheed asserted: he had asserted innocence; counsel misadvised him he could raise disputed facts at sentencing; he lacked glasses and was under duress while pleading; his mother pressured him to plead; and his sister had been threatened to coerce a plea.
The district court credited trial counsel’s testimony that he did not advise deferral of objections, found Shaheed’s duress and coercion claims not credible, and noted substantial inculpatory evidence (purchase of the Taser used and codefendant testimony).
The court found the government would be prejudiced by withdrawal because the victim would face severe emotional setback if called again and witnesses/logistics had already been prepared.
The district court denied withdrawal and sentenced Shaheed; the Third Circuit affirmed, reviewing factual findings for clear error and the denial for abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Shaheed sufficiently reasserted innocence to justify plea withdrawal	Shaheed contended he was innocent, citing lack of DNA/fingerprints and poor witness descriptions	He argued absence of forensic ID and inconsistent victim descriptions show innocence	Court held his late, bald assertions lacked record facts and did not overcome plea; factor fails
Whether counsel misadvised Shaheed about reserving objections until sentencing	Shaheed said counsel told him he could defer objections until sentencing	Trial counsel denied this; court credited counsel’s testimony	Court found no clear error in crediting counsel; factor weighs against withdrawal
Whether Shaheed was under duress or coerced (glasses, mother, threat to sister)	Claimed inability to read plea, counsel spoke softly, mother pressured, sister threatened	Record showed Shaheed affirmed understanding at colloquy; mother text supported counsel; threats not credibly shown or timely reported	Court rejected duress/coercion claims as not credible or insufficient to justify withdrawal
Whether government would be prejudiced by withdrawal	Shaheed argued no prejudice shown	Government argued victim would suffer severe emotional setback and witnesses/logistics would need repeating	Court found prejudice (victim trauma, witness logistics); factor supports denial

United States v. Siddons, 660 F.3d 699 (3d Cir. 2011) (standard of review for plea-withdrawal and need to explain inconsistent positions)
United States v. Jones, 336 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 2003) (three-factor test for post-acceptance, pre-sentencing plea withdrawal)
United States v. Wilson, 429 F.3d 455 (3d Cir. 2005) (withdrawal of a guilty plea is not an absolute right)
United States v. Martinez, 785 F.2d 111 (3d Cir. 1986) (appellate review of district court findings on plea withdrawal)
United States v. Brown, 250 F.3d 811 (3d Cir. 2001) (assertions of innocence must be supported by record facts)
United States v. Salgado-Ocampo, 159 F.3d 322 (7th Cir. 1998) (assertions of innocence must be buttressed by record)
Gov’t of V.I. v. Berry, 631 F.2d 214 (3d Cir. 1980) (weight of defendant’s assertions are for the hearing court to decide)