Malachi Mullings was charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering and multiple counts of money laundering related to a scheme laundering millions of dollars from romance scams and business email compromises for an African fraud ring. After his bond was revoked for assaulting his girlfriend, Mullings moved to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing his attorney bullied him into pleading and that he was unaware of a co-conspirator's cooperation. He also challenged his 120-month sentence, disputing the calculated loss amount, several sentencing guideline enhancements, and the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The district court denied the motion to withdraw the plea and imposed the sentence, leading to this appeal.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial of the plea withdrawal motion for abuse of discretion, applying the factors from United States v. Buckles. The court found that Mullings received close assistance of counsel, as his attorneys were available and utilized, and that his plea was entered knowingly and voluntarily. The court noted the district court's credibility findings that Mullings's later testimony of coercion contradicted his sworn statements during the plea colloquy and the testimony of his attorneys. Regarding the sentence, the court applied de novo review to legal questions and clear error review to factual findings. It upheld the loss calculation, accepting the fraud auditor's methodology as a reasonable estimate and finding sufficient evidence that Mullings directed the co-conspirator's laundering activities. The court affirmed the two-level aggravating-role enhancement because Mullings recruited and supervised at least one co-conspirator. It also affirmed the four-level enhancement for being in the business of money laundering, citing the regularity, duration, and revenue of the scheme. The obstruction-of-justice enhancement was upheld because Mullings made willful false testimony under oath when he later denied guilt, which the court found constituted perjury. Finally, the court affirmed the denial of the acceptance of responsibility reduction, noting that conduct resulting in an obstruction enhancement ordinarily indicates a lack of acceptance of responsibility.
The decision reinforces the high bar for withdrawing a guilty plea after sentencing, particularly when a defendant's post-plea testimony contradicts their sworn statements. It clarifies that obstruction-of-justice enhancements can preclude acceptance-of-responsibility reductions and confirms that detailed, albeit imperfect, auditor testimony can support substantial loss calculations in complex fraud cases. The sentence remains 120 months, well below the guidelines range of 188 to 235 months.