United States v. Stephen Telemaque, 702 F. App'x 824

Defendant Stephen Telemaque pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute a detectable amount of ethylone and later moved to withdraw the plea before sentencing.
Telemaque asserted his plea was involuntary because defense counsel misadvised him about the ethylone-to-marijuana conversion ratio used in sentencing calculations (counsel told him 1:500; a different ratio could increase guideline exposure).
Counsel was appointed before the superseding indictment and advised Telemaque about charges, the plea agreement, and advisory Guidelines.
The district court conducted a Rule 11 colloquy; Telemaque made affirmations that he understood the plea terms, that the court could impose a harsher sentence, and that he could not withdraw if the sentence was worse than expected.
At sentencing the court (1) released Telemaque from the plea recommendation provision, (2) calculated a Guidelines range using a 1:380 conversion, and (3) considered Telemaque’s arguments for a lower sentence.
The district court denied the motion to withdraw; the Eleventh Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Telemaque’s guilty plea was involuntary due to counsel’s erroneous advice about ethylone–marijuana conversion ratio	Telemaque: he would not have pled guilty but for counsel’s mistaken advice (1:500 conversion) affecting sentencing exposure	Government/District Court: Telemaque received close assistance of counsel, Rule 11 colloquy was proper, and he affirmed understanding risk of a higher sentence; counsel’s omission about a then-unpublished 1:250 case was not dispositive	Court held: plea was knowing and voluntary; denial of withdrawal was not an abuse of discretion
Whether Telemaque had "close assistance of counsel" during plea proceedings	Telemaque: counsel failed to advise about potentially applicable conversion ratio precedent	Government/District Court: counsel was appointed pre-indictment, advised on charges, plea, and Guidelines; assistance was available and utilized	Court held: close assistance of counsel was present, so this Buckles factor favors denying withdrawal

United States v. Symington, 781 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2015) (defendant may withdraw plea when Rule 11 errors misstate penalties)
United States v. Izquierdo, 448 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for plea-withdrawal denials)
United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469 (11th Cir. 1988) (factors for evaluating Rule 11(d)(2)(B) motions)
United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d 796 (11th Cir. 1987) (focus on first two Buckles factors when dispositive)
United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2006) (trial court assesses credibility and weight of withdrawal assertions)
United States v. Medlock, 12 F.3d 185 (11th Cir. 1994) (statements under oath receive strong presumption of truthfulness)
United States v. Rogers, 848 F.2d 166 (11th Cir. 1988) (heavy burden to show that sworn plea-colloquy statements were false)
United States v. McCarty, 99 F.3d 383 (11th Cir. 1996) (close assistance of counsel examined by availability and use)
United States v. Owen, 858 F.2d 1514 (11th Cir. 1988) (Rule 11 requires sufficient factual basis, not uncontroverted evidence)
United States v. Pease, 240 F.3d 938 (11th Cir. 2001) (denial of withdrawal affirmed when defendant was informed of possible penalties and warned not to rely on counsel’s sentence estimates)
Dominguez Benitez v. United States, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) (defendant must show prejudice to prevail on certain plea-challenge claims)