United States v. Farid Shalabi
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Farid Othman SHALABI, Defendant-Appellant
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Central District of California
- Trial judge
- Percy Anderson (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stephen S. Trott (author), Kim M. Wardlaw, Brewster
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50035 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:08-cr-01020-PA-1 v. MEMORANDUM * FARID OTHMAN SHALABI, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 7, 2010 ** Pasadena, California Before: TROTT, WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and BREWSTER, District Judge.*** Four months after pleading guilty to aiding and abetting his brother in filing false tax returns that failed to report almost $400,000 in income from a coupon * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Rudi M. Brewster, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of California, sitting by designation. processing business, Shalabi filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The “fair and just reasons” he advanced in support of his motion were (1) that he believed his plea was part of a package deal involving his brother, and that if he did not go through with it, his sickly brother would be forced to undergo a daunting retrial, and (2) that he did not understand that the consequences of his felony tax plea might include the loss of business licenses he needed to make a living.
The district court held a thorough hearing on Shalabi’s claims, and denied his motion to withdraw. He appeals that ruling.
The district court’s findings and conclusions that (1) there was insufficient objective evidence to conclude that Shalabi’s plea was a part of a package deal, and (2) that Shalabi was fully aware of the possible consequences to his business licenses before entering the plea are fully supported by the factual record. Thus, the district court’s exercise of discretion in denying Shalabi’s motion was appropriate.
As we recently said in United States v. Briggs, 623 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir.
2010), it appears that Shalabi “only wanted to change his plea once he was face-to- face with the full consequences of his conduct.”
AFFIRMED.