In United States District Court, a non-citizen defendant can move to withdraw a guilty plea under to Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows for the withdrawal of a plea before sentence is imposed for any “fair and just reason.”[29]  The decision to grant this motion falls within the discretion of the court.[30]  The decision is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.[31]

After sentence has been imposed, Rule 32(e) precludes setting aside a plea except on direct appeal or by motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.  This rule has severely limited the availability of a post-sentence plea withdrawal.[32]

[29] Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e); United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670 (1997); United States v. Burdeau, 168 F.3d 352 (9th Cir. 1999).

[30] United States v. Wade, 940 F.2d 1375, 1377 (10th Cir. 1991).

[31] See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 294 F.3d 1192, 1196 (9th Cir. 2002); United States v. Ruiz, 257 F.3d 1030, 1032-33 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (clarifying that “fair and just” rather than “manifest injustice” standard should be applied by district court); United States v. King, 257 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2001); United States v. Nguyen, 235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir. 2000); United States v. Turnipseed, 159 F.3d 383, 387 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Alber, 56 F.3d 1106, 1111 (9th Cir. 1995); United States v. Oliveros‑Orosco, 942 F.2d 644, 645‑46 (9th Cir. 1991). 

[32] See, e.g., United States v. Gavilan, 761 F.2d 226 (5th Cir. 1985) (counsel’s failure to advise defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea did not require post-sentence withdrawal of that plea, since defendant failed to establish prejudice).

POST CON - FEDERAL - RULE 33 MOTION TO VACATE TIME LIMITS
Eberhart v. United States, ___ U.S. ___ (October 31, 2005) (Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, which allows a district court to vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires, is an inflexible claim-processing rule, and the Seventh Circuit incorrectly construed its time limitations as jurisdictional).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/04-9949.html

Fifth Circuit

POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA " STANDARD OF REVIEW " ABUSE OF DISCRETION " DEFINITION
United States v. Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d 361, 369 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2014) (district court commits reversible error by failing to consider Padilla claim as a ground in support of a motion to withdraw a plea before imposition of sentence: We hold that when a Padilla claim is sufficiently presented during a motion to withdraw a plea, both legally and factually, a district court errs in failing to address the claim. Moreover, if the court finds that a Padilla violation occurred, that finding compels the court to permit the defendant to withdraw the guilty plea.).

POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA " STANDARD OF REVIEW " ABUSE OF DISCRETION " DEFINITION
United States v. Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d 361, 369 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2014) (district court commits reversible error by failing to consider Padilla claim as a ground in support of a motion to withdraw a plea before imposition of sentence: We hold that when a Padilla claim is sufficiently presented during a motion to withdraw a plea, both legally and factually, a district court errs in failing to address the claim. Moreover, if the court finds that a Padilla violation occurred, that finding compels the court to permit the defendant to withdraw the guilty plea.).

POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA " STANDARD OF REVIEW " ABUSE OF DISCRETION
United States v. Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d 361 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2014) (A district court abuses its discretion if it bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.); quoting United States v. Mann, 161 F.3d 840, 860 (5th Cir. 1998).

POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA " STANDARD OF REVIEW
United States v. Urias-Marrufo, 744 F.3d 361, 364 (5th Cir. Feb. 28, 2014) (the district courts denial of a motion to withdraw a plea is evaluated by considering the following factors: (1) whether or not the defendant has asserted his innocence; (2) whether or not the government would suffer prejudice if the withdrawal motion were granted; (3) whether or not the defendant has delayed in filing his withdrawal motion; (4) whether or not the withdrawal would substantially inconvenience the court; (5) whether or not close assistance of counsel was available; (6) whether or not the original plea was knowing and voluntary; and (7) whether or not the withdrawal would waste judicial resources .... We also consider, where applicable, the reasons why a defendant delayed in making his withdrawal motion. The above factors are non-exclusive, and we ultimately examine the totality of the circumstances.) (footnotes omitted); quoting United States v. Carr, 740 F.2d 339, 343-344 (5th Cir. Aug. 17, 1984).

Sixth Circuit

POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA
United States v. Mendez-Santana, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1901545 (6th Cir. May 20, 2011) (where a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is made before the court accepted the guilty plea, the defendant may withdraw the plea for any reason or no reason[.] [quoting F.R.Crim. P. 11(d)(1)]; the district court therefore lacked discretion to deny illegal reentry defendants motion to withdraw his unaccepted guilty plea); accord, United States v. Arami, 536 F.3d 479, 482"83 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Jones, 472 F.3d 905, 908 (D.C.Cir.2007); United States v. Head, 340 F.3d 628, 629"31 (8th Cir.2003); see also United States v. Shaker, 279 F.3d 494, 497 (7th Cir.2002) (holding, prior to 2002 revision, that Rule 32(e) was triggered only when district court accepted guilty plea so that before acceptance defendant could withdraw plea with no explanation for his change of heart.).

POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " MOTION TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA AFTER SENTENCE " STANDARD OF REVIEW " ABUSE OF DISCRETION
United States v. Haygood, 549 F.3d 1049, 1052 (6th Cir. 2008) (the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea made after the district court accepted the guilty plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion).

Ninth Circuit

POST CON RELIEF " FEDERAL " MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA BEFORE SENTENCE " STANDARD OF REVIEW
United States v. Bonilla, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2011) (We review for abuse of discretion the district courts denial of Bonillas motion to withdraw his plea in accordance with the fair and just reason standard for withdrawal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d)(2)(B). As we have recently explained, the fair and just standard is generous and must be applied liberally. United States v. McTiernan, 546 F.3d 1160, 1167 (9th Cir. 2008). A defendant who moves to withdraw a guilty plea before a sentence is imposed is not required to show that he would not have pled, but only that the proper legal advice of which he was deprived could have at least plausibly motivated a reasonable person in [the defendants] position not to have pled guilty . . . . United States v. Garcia, 401 F.3d 1008, 1011-12 (9th Cir. 2005). A presentence motion to withdraw a plea should be freely allowed if a defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal. See United States v. Davis, 428 F.3d 802, 808 (9th Cir. 2005). Erroneous or inadequate legal advice may . . . constitute a fair and just reason for plea withdrawal. McTiernan, 546 F.3d at 1167. Here, the reason Bonilla gave for withdrawal of the plea was inadequate legal advice concerning the immigration consequences of his guilty plea.).

POST CONVICTION RELIEF - VEHICLES - SUA SPONTE MOTION TO VACATE GUILTY PLEA
In re Ellis, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. Feb. 04, 2004) (district court lacks sua sponte authority to vacate a previously entered and accepted guilty plea; upon rejecting the plea agreement, the only course available for the district court under FRCP rule 11 is to advise the defendant of his rights, including the right to withdraw the guilty plea).
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0170724p.pdf