United States v. Blattner (195 F. Supp. 3d 1205, 2016)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

James 0. Browning, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, filed October 29, 2015 (Doc. 148)(“Motion”). The Court held hearings on the Motion on November 10, 2015, November 23, 2015, December 2, 2015, and December 9, 2015. The primary issue is whether Defendant Chris Blattner has given the Court a fair and just reason to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea, by asserting that he took Lysergic Acid Diethyla-mide (“LSD”) the evening before his plea colloquy with the Honorable Karen B. Molzen, Chief United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has weighed the seven factors that the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit requires it to consider when determining whether to allow a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea, and it determines that Blattner has not given the Court a fair and just reason for permitting him to withdraw his plea. The Court, therefore, denies the Motion.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure requires the Court to state its essential findings on the record when deciding a motion that involves factual issues. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(d) (“When factual issues are involved in deciding a [pretrial] motion, the court must state its essential findings on the record.”). The findings of fact in the Memorandum Opinion and Order shall serve as the Court’s essential findings for purposes of. rule 12(d).

1. LSD’s Pharmacological Effects.

1. LSD has been in usage in the United States of America since the 1960s. See Transcript of Hearing at 72:17-73:11 (Tor-rez, Tella)(taken November 23, 2015), filed December 4, 2015 (Doc. 165)(“Nov. 23 Tr”).

2. LSD is used mostly by teenagers and young adults no older than their 20s, although occasionally there are instances of older people using it. See Transcript of Hearing at 24:10-26:5 (taken December 2, 2015), filed December 8, 2015 (Doc. 172)(Court, Goldberg, Kochersberger, Tor-rez)(“Dec. 2 Tr.”).

3. Today, LSD is used far less than in decades past, particularly in New Mexico. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 26:6-15 (Goldberg, Tor-rez).

4. Although the exact mechanism is not completely understood, LSD seems to affect some of the deepest and more central parts of the primitive brain in the areas where it is believed that emotion, feelings, and perception are mediated—the Hippo-campus and the Cingulate Gyrus. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 27:19-28:3 (Goldberg).

5. The nature and duration of the effects of LSD may vary depending on factors such as the product’s quality, the dose ingested, and the individual user’s experience, personality, and metabolism. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 85:24-86:13 (Telia); Dec. 2 Tr. at 28:4-13 (Goldberg).

6. Whether a person might exhibit any observable symptoms after ingesting LSD depends on several factors, including his or her personality, expectations, dosage, and tolerance. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 78:10-19 (Tel-ia).

7. LSD produces physiological effects on the brain and body, as well as psychological effects. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 75:5-7 (Tel-ia); Dec. 2 Tr. at 28:6:30:14 (Goldberg).

8. LSD’s physiological effects can include dilated pupils, increased blood pressure and heart rate, increased body temperature, salivation, lacrimation, sweating, nausea, tremor, and hyperreflexia—which is enhanced reflexes of the muscular flex-ors—dizziness, piloerection, hypoglycemia, feelings of numbness, muscle weakness, and sleeplessness or “wakefulness.” Nov. 23 Tr. at 75:22-76:9 (Telia); Dec. 2 Tr. at 28:14-20 (Goldberg).

9. LSD’s physiological effects are not always manifested in those who have ingested the drug, and they are the same as, or very similar to, the physiological signs of anxiety. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 30:15-31:11 (Goldberg, Kochersberger).

10. For example, any person who is placed in a circumstance that makes them uncomfortable could experience dilated pupils, increased heart rate, sweating, and tremors. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 30:25-31:3 (Goldberg).

11. A person coming into contact with an individual under LSD’s influence would not normally observe most of LSD’s physiological symptoms—such as dilated pupils, elevated blood pressure, and dizziness—in the absence of in-depth conversation, or mood and emotional changes. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 81:9-82:25 (Kochersberger, Telia); Dec. 2 Tr. at 31:4-32:4 (Goldberg, Kochersber-ger).

12. Many of LSD’s physiological symptoms, such as dizziness, nausea, and muscle weakness, would generally be undetectable unless they were either very extreme, or the user informed someone that he or she was experiencing those symptoms. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 45:18-46:6 (Goldberg).

13. LSD also has psychological effects, including affectation of a person’s perception, mood, emotion, intellectual process, and thoughts. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 74:21-24 (Telia).

14. Psychologically, LSD can produce anxiety, altered thinking, altered time perception, convoluted and mixed sensory experiences—such as hearing colors or seeing sounds—visual hallucinations, a sense of enhanced spirituality and spiritual experiences, loss of self, a merging of the individual with the environment around the user, and a loss of boundaries in terms of where the user ends and the world around the user begins. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 28:20-29:11 (Goldberg).

15. LSD may cause marked effects on mood and emotions, including sudden or inappropriate laughing or crying without any or only a slight provocation, euphoria and dysphoria. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 76:14-18 (Telia); id. at 83:9-86:3 (Kochersberger, Telia); Dec. 2 Tr. at 32:10-17 (Goldberg).

16. Even very perceptive observers may not know that someone, particularly a seasoned drug user, is under LSD’s influence. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 31:24-32:4 (Goldberg, Kochersberger); id at 45:3-17 (Goldberg, Torrez).

17. Individuals under LSD’s influence are focused on their own internal emotional experiences, are not focused on whatever is going on around them, and tend to say whatever they need to say to get out of the situation in which they are present in order to focus on their LSD experience. See Dec. 2 Tr, at 35:7-21 (Goldberg).

18. An LSD “trip” begins approximately thirty minutes after the drug is ingested, peaks in about four hours and it has a four-hour half-life, meaning that twelve hours after ingesting the drug, a person is down to about an eighth of the initial dose. Dec. 2 Tr. at 29:12-25 (Goldberg). See Nov. 23 Tr. at 77:17-22 (Telia).

2. Blattner’s Pre-Trial Criminal Histo-a

19. Blattner has been convicted of various felonies, misdemeanors, and juvenile offenses. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 26:13-21 (Blattner, Torrez).

20. Blattner was convicted of trafficking in a controlled substance in 2000 in Bernal-illo County, New Mexico. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 26:13-21 (Blattner, Torrez).

21. Blattner was convicted of trafficking and manufacturing methamphetamine in 2004 in Bernalillo County. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 26:22-27:1 (Blattner, Torrez).

22. On December 15, 2005, Blattner was convicted in the Second Judicial District, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico, of the possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance—methamphetamine. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 27:12-21 (Blatt-ner, Torrez).

23. In June 2009, Blattner was convicted of trafficking and possession with intent to distribute heroin in the Second Judicial District. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 27:12-17 (Blatt-ner, Torrez).

24. On April 3, 2014, Blattner was convicted of second-degree murder with the firearm enhancement in the Second Judicial District and voluntary manslaughter in the death of Kathy Paquin, and was sentenced on both offenses to a total of twenty-seven years. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 28:2-29:1 (Blattner, Torrez).

3. The Federal Criminal Offense.

25. On February 6, 2013, a federal grand jury indicted Blattner on two counts of Distribution of a Mixture and Substance Containing Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C); one count of Possessing a Firearm During and Relation to and in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and two counts of Felon in Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). See Indictment at 1-3, filed February 6, 2013 (Doc. 2).

26. On April 9, 2014, Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen set a change of plea hearing for April 17, 2014. See Notice of Hearing, filed April 9,2014 (Doc. 39).

27. Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen terminated the hearing on April 17, 2014, upon Blattner’s notification that he did not wish to enter a guilty plea. See Terminate Plea Hearings, filed April 17, 2014 (No Docket Number Available).

28. Another change of plea hearing was then scheduled for May 23, 2014, during which Blattner again advised that he did not wish to proceed with the hearing. See Notice of Hearing, filed May 8, 2014 (Doc. 42); Plea Minute Sheet, filed May 23, 2014 (Doc. 46).

29. On August 26, 2014, a second federal grand jury charged Blattner in an eight-count superseding indictment, which added additional counts for Possessing a Firearm in Relation to and in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); Felon in Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); and Possession with Intent to Distribute a Mixture and Substance Containing Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). See Superseding Indictment at 1-5, filed August 26, 2014 (Doc. 55).

30. After Blattner filed numerous motions to continue the trial setting, all of which the Court granted, see, e.g., Order Granting Continuance of Trial, filed August 1, 2013 (Doc. 25); Order Granting Continuance of Trial, filed December 4, 2013 (Doc. 31); Order Granting Continuance of Trial, filed October 30, 2Q14 (Doc. 75), the Court set the trial for April 13, 2015, see Order Continuing March 16, 2015 Trial, filed March 2, 2015 (Doc. 82), and held a hearing on several pretrial motions on April 9, 2015, see Clerk’s Minutes, filed April 9, 2015 (Doc. 120).

31. On April 10, 2015, Blattner pled guilty before Chief Magistrate Judge Mol-zen. See Plea Minute Sheet, filed April 10, 2015 (Doc. 116); Plea Agreement, filed April 10, 2015 (Doc. 115)(“Plea Agreement”).

4. Blattner’s Incarceration at the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center.

32. At the time Blattner ultimately entered his guilty plea on April 10, 2015, he had been an inmate at the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center for at least one year. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 7:20-8:1 (Blattner, Kochersberger),

33. To prevent the introduction of contraband through the mail at the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center, the mail clerk scans the mail, opens it, inspects the envelope and the letter, and, if there is any stain on the letter or anything suspicious, the mail clerk will reject the mail and return it to the sender. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 98:7-12 (Archuleta).

34. If there is some stain on the letter or anything to the effect that it is suspicious, the mail clerk will reject the letter and return it to the sender, or if there was a strong suspicion that it was contraband, it would be forwarded to law enforcement. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 98:16-18 (Archuleta).

35. Prisoners are able to obtain illegal substances and other contraband in the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center, despite the facility banning those substances. See Dec. 2 Tr. 69:12-17 (Kochers-berger, Ortega); id. at 90:16-19 (Kochers-berger, Valdo); Transcript of Hearing at 14:6-17 (Heard, Kochersberger)(taken December 9, 2015), filed December 22, 2015 (Doc. 178)(“Dec. 9 Tr”).

36. Despite frequent shakedowns and the use of scanners at the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center, security is unable to catch all the drugs present in the facility. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 14:10-17 (Heard, Kochersberger).

37. Inmates are able to acquire illegal drugs through various channels, including the mail, Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center employees, visitors, and other inmates. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 90:11-91:12 (Ko-chersberger, Valdo).

38. LSD, however, is an uncommon drug in correctional settings and is an uncommon drug at the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 64:17-22 (Ortega,' Torrez); id. at 97:23-100:25 (Archuleta, Kochersberger).

39. It would in theory be possible, however, for the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center inmates to come into possession of paper that had been soaked in drugs, including LSD. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 91:25-92:6 (Kochersberger, Valdo); id. at 101:4-19 (Archuleta, Kochersberger).

40. Blattner is a good artist and the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center’s main focus on Blattner was his tattooing paraphernalia. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 61:17-25 (Ortega, Torrez).

41. Throughout his stay at the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center, Blattner was found with contraband, including weapons, tattoo paraphernalia—including a tattoo machine—a syringe, “self-made hooch,” weapons, and alcohol. Dec. 2 Tr. at 91:13-24 (Kochersberger, Valdo); id. at 68:1-70:19 (Kochersberger, Ortega).

42. Syringes are commonly used to administer drugs. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 92:14-16 (Kochersberger, Valdo); id. at 69:9-10 (Ko-chersberger, Ortega).

43. The Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center employed Sergeant Anthony Ortega during Blattner’s stay there, and Ortega had contact with Blattner. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 59-61 (Ortega).

44. Blattner had been allowed to have a chair in his cell because of a skin condition; the public safety director said that the chair was contraband, which could be used as escape paraphernalia, and ordered Ortega to take the chair away from Blatt-ner. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 72:1-15 (Kochersber-ger, Ortega).

45. Blattner threatened to kill the director because of the removal of the chair from his cell. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 72:16-18 (Kochersberger, Ortega).

46. Blattner wanted the chair for doing tattoos on other inmates. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 73:21-25 (Kochersberger, Ortega).

47. Blattner took the motor for the CD player in the computer—which is loaned to inmates so they can review their case files or to look up case law—for the purpose of having a tattoo machine. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 74:5-77:16 (Kochersberger, Ortega).

48. Anthony Valdo was Blattner’s case manager at the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 81:25-83:12 (Torrez, Valdo).

49. Valdo met with Blattner on a regular basis from March, 2014, until his plea on April 10, 2015. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 85:2-17 (Torrez, Valdo).

50. Blattner never exhibited anything out of the ordinary that might indicate that he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 87:19-88:18 (Tor-rez, Valdo); id. at 98:1-4 (Kochersberger, Valdo).

51. Blattner manipulates situations to get his way. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 80:9-24 (Court, Kochersberger, Ortega, Torrez).

52. Blattner used drugs while incarcerated at the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 92:23-25 (Kochersberger, Valdo).

53. Little Son Heard was Blattner’s therapist at the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 7:20-22 (Heard, Kochersberger).

54. Heard came into contact with Blatt-ner approximately once per week, sometimes more often and sometimes less. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 12:17-22 (Heard).

55. Blattner reported “social anxiety” to Heard and stated that he had the problem since childhood. Dec. 9 Tr. at 17:6-18:21 (Heard, Torrez).

56. Heard reported that there were times where Blattner was more anxious than other times, and there were other times where he seemed relaxed. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 35:3-7 (Heard, Kochersberger).

57. There were only two occasions, on May 22, 2015 and August 13, 2015, where Blattner was “possibly altered.” Dec. 9 Tr. at 13:3-14:5 (Heard, Kochersberger).

58. On May 22, 2015, Heard noted in Blattner’s file that he was “possibly altered.” Dec. 9 Tr. at 13:3-9 (Heard, Ko-chersberger).

59. On August 13, 2015, Heard noted in Blattner’s file that he appeared “somewhat altered.” Dec. 9 Tr. at 13:18-22 (Heard, Kochersberger).

60. On both occasions, Blattner was under the influence of illegal narcotics. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 13:6-14:5 (Heard, Kochers-berger).

61. On both occasions that Blattner was under the influence of illegal narcotics, Heard advised her supervisor, Ortega, of her suspicion. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 15:8-18 (Heard, Kochersberger).

62. On one of these occasions, Ortega advised Heard that he also suspected that Blattner might be using drugs and had already scheduled a shakedown. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 15:15-22 (Heard, Kochersberger).

63. On the other occasion, Ortega advised Heard that he had already scheduled a shakedown. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 15:23-16:2 (Heard, Kochersberger).

5. April 19, 2015—the Day Before Blattner’s Plea Hearing,

64. On April 9, 2015—the day before Blattner’s April 10, 2015,, plea hearing— Blattner did not acquire LSD from another inmate at the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center.

65. Blattner did not ingest LSD sometime after 9:00 p.m. on the night before his April 10, 2015 plea hearing.

66. Because Blattner did not acquire or ingest any LSD on April 9, 2015, he did not experience effects such as euphoria, visual hallucinations, detachment from reality, and sleeplessness.

67. On the evening of April 9, 2015, after lockdown at approximately 11:30 p.m., Blattner was informed for the first time that he was scheduled for a plea hearing the following morning. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 13:12-20 (Blattner).

5. Blattner’s April 10, 2015, Plea Hearing.

68.On April 10, 2015, Blattner, at a change of plea hearing before Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen, entered a guilty plea to counts 2 and 5 of the Superseding Indictment, each charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See Plea Minute Sheet, filed April 10, 2015 (Doc. 116); Plea Agreement at 1-9.

69. At the time of the April 10, 2015, plea hearing, Blattner had not slept in over twenty-four hours. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 15:24-16:7 (Blattner, Kochersberger).

70. Blattner had not received or reviewed the Plea Agreement before his arrival in court for the plea hearing on April 10, 2015. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 38:12-39:24 (Blattner, Torrez).

71. At the outset of the plea hearing, Blattner was placed under oath, and Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen told Blattner that he had to be truthful with the Court, and that he could be prosecuted for perjury or making a false statement if he was untruthful. See Transcript of Change of Plea Hearing at 2:18-3:3 (taken April 10, 2015), filed November 4, 2015 (Doc. 149)(Blattner, Court)(“Plea Tr.”).

72. During the plea hearing, Blattner acknowledged that, if he did not understand everything or if he had any questions at all, he should stop and ask for time to speak with his counsel, or ask the Court to provide more explanation. See Plea Tr. at 2:24-3:3 (Blattner, Court).

73. Blattner also informed Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen that he had no physical or mental illnesses or conditions which could affect his ability to understand the proceedings. See Plea Tr. at 4:8-18 (Blatt-ner, Court).

■ 74. At the plea hearing, Blattner stated that he had “a little anxiety issue,” for which he was not taking any medication. Plea Tr. at 4:20-22 (Blattner, Court).

75. Blattner was feeling anxious, under a lot of pressure, and uncomfortable at the plea hearing. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 17:25-18:7-20 (Blattner); id. at 21:23-25 (Blatt-ner).

76. Blattner answered some of the questions in the affirmative so that he could get the hearing over with sooner. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 18:18-20 (Blattner); id at 20:16-24 (Blattner); id at 21:23-25 (Blattner); id. at 24:6-7 (Blattner); id. at 25:15-19 (Blatt-ner).

77. Blattner affirmed that he was able to function during the hearing even with the “little” anxiety he had. Plea Tr. at 4:20-25 (Blattner, Court).

78. At the plea hearing and while under oath, Blattner told Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen that he was not under the influence of any drugs, medicines, or alcohol. See Plea Tr. at 5:1-3 (Blattner, Court).

79. At the plea hearing, Blattner told Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen that he was able to understand everything that was happening. See Plea Tr. at 5:4-6 (Blattner, Court).

80. Blattner informed Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen that there was nothing interfering with his ability to understand the proceedings. See Plea Tr. at 5:7-9 (Blatt-ner, Court).

81. Because Blattner was not under LSD’s influence, when he arrived at the courthouse for his plea hearing on April 10, 2015, he was not experiencing any effects of LSD.

82. Because Blattner was not under LSD’s influence, he was able to read the documents that his attorney presented him at the plea hearing.

83. Because Blattner was not under LSD’s influence, he did not continue to suffer from visual hallucinations.

84. Because Blattner was not under LSD’s influence, he was able to understand and process the questions Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen asked him during the plea colloquy.

85. Because Blattner was not under LSD’s influence during the plea colloquy, he was capable of making informed decisions.

86. Because Blattner was not under LSD’s influence, he knew what he was saying during the plea colloquy and was not solely responding in an attempt to conclude the hearing.

87. Because Blattner was not under LSD’s influence, the drug did not impair his ability to make informed decisions.

88. Blattner agreed to some questions asked of him by the Court so that he could end the process and leave the courtroom. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 21:23-25 (Blattner); id. at 24:6-10 (Blattner); id. at 25:15-19 (Blatt-ner); id. at 37:21-23 (Blattner).

89. Blattner “on a number of times” told his attorney—-Donald Kochersberger— that “he was using illegal drugs while incarcerated.” Transcript of Hearing at 16:15-17:2 (Court, Kochersberger)(taken November 10, 2015), filed November 19, 2015 (Doc. 158)(“Nov. 10 Tr.”). See Motion at 2.

90. Mr. Kochersberger did not believe Blattner. See Nov 10 Tr. at 16:15-17:2 (Kochersberger).

91. On the day of his plea hearing— April 10, 2015—Blattner informed Mr. Ko-' chersberger that he was under LSD’s influence and “that the windows looked to be an odd color or a pretty color, different than they actually appeared in the courtroom.” Dec. 9 Tr. at 37:3-20 (Court, Ko-chersberger). See Nov. 23 Tr. at 45:2-46 (Blattner).

92. Mr. Kochersberger did not believe Blattner that he was under LSD’s influence at the April 10, 2015, plea hearing.

93. The Court has found Mr. Kochers-berger to be an ethical, helpful and credible lawyer.

94. Blattner began laughing at seemingly inappropriate times during the April 10, 2015, plea colloquy. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 22:14-16 (Blattner); id. at 83:13-17 (Telia); Dec. 2 Tr. at 32:10-12 (Goldberg, Kochers-berger).

95. Blattner 'does not now have a clear memory of his conversations with his attorney or the plea hearing on April 10, 2015. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 16:21-22 (Blatt-ner).

96. To the extent that Blattner related any factual matters to Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen at the plea hearing, his recollection of those facts was based on then-presence in the discovery that the United States provided in this case. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 54:19-56:10 (Blattner); Dec. 2 Tr. at 5:1-9 (Blattner, Torrez).

97. Blattner took several additional minutes to confer with Mr. Kochersberger before entering into the Plea Agreement. See Plea Tr. at 16:16-16:16 (Blattner, Court, Kochersberger).

98. Afterwards, Blattner confirmed to Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen that he had had enough time to confer with Mr. Kochersberger, that Mr. Kochersberger had answered all of his questions, and that he was satisfied with Mr. Kochersberger’s representation. See Plea Tr. at 17:8-25 (Blattner, Court).

99. Blattner confirmed that nobody was threatening him if he did not plead guilty and that he was entering into the Plea Agreement voluntarily. See Plea Tr. at 18:1-19:9 (Blattner, Court, Kochersberger).

100. After a lengthy exchange involving Blattner, Mr. Kochersberger, Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen, and the United States, Blattner then considered not entering into the Plea Agreement over the factual basis for his August 6, 2012, possession of firearms, informing his counsel: “You know, let’s just go on and do the trial thing, man.” Plea Tr. at 16:18-28:15 (Blatt-ner, Court, Kochersberger, Torrez, Valencia).

101. The plea hearing was adjourned, with Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen stating: “Okay. So, I’ll let Judge Browning know that it looks like we’ll be proceeding to a trial on Monday.” Plea Tr. at 28:3-15 (Blattner, Court, Kochersberger, Valencia).

102. Blattner again conferred with Mr. Kochersberger and the plea hearing then resumed. See Plea Tr. at 28:16-19 (Court).

103. Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen noted that she “had been attempting to establish a factual basis with Mr. Blattner on Counts Two and Five, to which he has pled guilty.” Plea Tr. at 28:24-29:1 (Court).

104. Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen reminded Blattner that he was under oath and that he needed to tell the truth. See Plea Tr. at 29:2-7 (Blattner, Court).

105. Blattner acknowledged that he understood that,' See Plea Tr. at 29:2-7 (Blattner Court).

106. In response to questioning by Mr. Kochersberger, Blattner admitted that he gave methamphetamine to Elizabeth Taylor, that when he did so he was in possession of one or more firearms, and that he had those firearms on his person at the time of the transfer of the methamphetamine to Taylor. See Plea Tr. at 30:9-31:14 (Blattner, Court, Kochersberger, Valencia).

107. Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen, Mr. Kochersberger, and the United States all agreed that Blattner’s responses to Mr. Kochersberger’s questioning stated.the elements of the offense. See Plea Tr. at 31:15-32:1 (Court, Kochersberger, Valencia).

108. Blattner then confirmed that he understood that as a term of his plea agreement, if Judge Browning were to accept it, he would go to prison for thirty years. See Plea Tr. at 32:2-36 (Blattner, Court)..

109. Blattner confirmed that he was entering into the guilty plea voluntarily and that nobody was forcing him to do so. See Plea Tr. at 32:7-11 (Blattner, Court).

110. Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen then accepted Blattner’s guilty plea and adjudged him guilty of those crimes. See Plea Tr. at 32:12-25 (Blattner, Court).

111. At the close of the plea hearing, Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen asked Blattner whether he understood everything that was happening and Blattner responded, “Yes.” Plea Tr. at 33:7-9 (Blatt-ner, Court).

112. She also asked whether this was how Blattner wanted to proceed and Blatt-ner responded, ‘Yeah.” Plea Tr. at 33:10-12 (Blattner, Court).

113. Blattner also confirmed to Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen that he had sufficient time with Mr. Kochersberger. See Plea Tr. at 33:13-15 (Blattner, Court).

114. Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen, in the Court’s experience, is a careful Magistrate Judge who would not have taken Blattner’s plea if she determined that he was not able to plead voluntarily and knowingly, or was under the influence.

115. In the Plea Agreement, which Blattner signed, Blattner stated that he was pleading guilty because he was in fact guilty of the offenses to which he was pleading guilty. See Plea Agreement ¶ 8, at 4.

116. In the Plea Agreement, Blattner, states the following:

I have carefully discussed every part of this agreement with my attorney. I understand the terms of this agreement, and I voluntarily agree to those terms. My attorney has advised me of my rights of possible defenses, of the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), of the relevant Sentencing Guidelines provisions, and of the consequences of entering into this agreement.

Plea Agreement ¶23, at 9. Blattner also consents to his statements from the Plea Agreement and those made at the plea hearing being used against him in future proceedings unless the Court, acting on its own, rejects the plea agreement:

Except under circumstances where the Court, acting on its own, rejects this plea agreement, the Defendant agrees that, upon the Defendant=s [sic] signing of this plea agreement, the facts that the Defendant has admitted under this plea agreement as set forth above, as well as any facts to which the Defendant admits in open court at the Defendants [sic] plea hearing, shall be admissible against the Defendant under Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2)(A) in any subsequent proceeding, including a criminal trial, and the Defendant expressly waives the Defendant=s [sic] rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f) and Federal Rule of Evidence 410 with regard to the facts the Defendant admits in conjunction with this plea agreement.

Plea Agreement ¶ 14, at 6.

117.The United States filed a sentencing memorandum regarding Blattner’s sentencing in which it argued that the Court had to run the thirty-year term of imprisonment in this federal case consecutive to the state term of imprisonment, although the state court, before there was a sentence in this case, ran its sentence concurrent with the Court’s sentence. See Government’s Sentencing Memorándum at 1, filed June 30, 2015 (Doc. 133).

118. Blattner subsequently filed a, series of motions to continue his sentencing hearing, which the Court granted. See, e.g., Unopposed Motion to Continue July 10, 2015 Sentencing, filed June 30, 2015 (Doc. 134); Motion to Continue August 12, 2015 Sentencing, filed July 24, 2015 (Doc. 140).

119. As described in this Memorandum Opinion and Order’s Procedural Background section below, on October 29, 2015, Blattner filed the Motion. See Motion at 1.

6. Additional Factual Findings.

120. Blattner has not asserted his innocence. See Government’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 167, at 19, filed December 17, 2015 (Doc. 177)(“United States’ Proposed Findings”).

121. The charged offenses in this case occurred more than three years ago on August 6, 2012, August 7, 2012, and August 22, 2012. See United States’ Proposed Findings ¶ 168, at 19.

122. The two cooperating witnesses were going to testify in detail and will now need to remember the details of events that took place more than three years ago. Sée United States’ Proposed Findings ¶ 169, at 19-20.

123. The United States will have to. relocate the numerous lay and law enforcement witnesses—approximately twenty-four—who may have moved to other states and law enforcement that have retired. See United States’ Proposed Findings ¶ 170, at 20.

124.Blattner filed the Motion nearly seven months after entering his plea without providing a reason for the delay. See Motion at 1.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2013, a federal grand jury indicted Blattner on two counts of Distribution of a Mixture and Substance Containing Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C); one count of Possessing a Firearm During and Relation to and in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); and two counts of Felon in Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). See Indictment at 1-3. On August 26, 2014, a second federal grand jury charged Blattner in an eight-count superseding indictment, which added additional counts for Possessing a Firearm in Relation to and in Furtherance of a Drug Trafficking Crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c); Felon in Possession of a Firearm and Ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2); and Possession with Intent to Distribute a Mixture and Substance Containing Methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C). See Superseding Indictment at 1-5. On April 10, 2015, Blattner, at a change of plea hearing before Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen, entered a guilty plea to counts 2 and 5 of the Superseding Indictment, each charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See Plea Minute Sheet at 1; Plea Agreement at 1.

1. The Motion.

On October 29, 2015, Blattner filed the Motion. See Motion at 1. Blattner moves the Court for an Order allowing him to withdraw his plea of guilty to Counts 2 and 5 of the Superseding Indictment. See Motion at 1. Blattner asserts that .rule 11(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a defendant to withdraw a guilty plea “after the court accepts the plea, but before it imposes sentence if the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Motion at 2 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B)). Blattner contends that the Tenth Circuit has identified seven factors that should guide the Court’s decision whether to permit a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea under this provision: “(1) whether the defendant has asserted his innocence, (2) prejudice to the government, (3) delay in filing defendant’s motion, (4) inconvenience to the court, (5) defendant’s assistance of counsel, (6) whether the plea is knowing and voluntary, and (7) waste of judicial resources.” Motion at 2 (quoting United States v. Sanchez-Leon, 764 F.3d 1248, 1258 (10th Cir.2014)). Further, according to Blattner, an additional factor that the Court should consider is the likelihood of conviction. See Motion at 2. Moreover, Blattner asserts that his April 10, 2015 guilty plea was invalid, because it was not made knowingly and voluntarily, and asks the Court to permit him to withdraw it. See Motion at 2.

Blattner asserts that “[t]he longstanding test fpr determining the validity of a guilty plea is whether the plea represents a voluntary and. intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.” Motion at 2 (quoting United States v. Sanchez-Leon, 764 F.3d at 1259). Further, according to Blattner, “[a] guilty plea ‘cannot be truly voluntary unless the defendant possesses an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.’ ”• Motion at 2 (quoting United States v. Gigot, 147 F.3d 1193, 1198 (10th Cir.1998)). Here, Blattner asserts that, at the time of his April 10, 2015 plea hearing, he was under LSD’s influence. See Motion at 2. He states that he has informed counsel repeatedly that he is often high while incarcerated, including at the time of his April 10, 2015 plea hearing. See Motion at 2. Moreover, Blatt-ner contends “that, as a result of his condition at the time of his plea hearing, he was unable to comprehend the substance of that proceeding, including the plea colloquy conducted by the Court.” Motion at 3. Blattner therefore asserts that he was unable to make a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives available to him at that time, that his plea was not truly voluntary, and that he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. See Motion at 3.

2. The United States’ Response.

The United States responded to the Motion on . November 13, 2015. See United States’ Response to Defendant Chris Blattner’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea, filed November 13, 2015 (Doc. 156)(“Response”). The United States contends that Blattner does not have a fair and just reason for the withdrawal of his guilty plea. See Response at 4. It first asserts that, in making its determination, the court primarily assesses whether the defendant: (i) knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty; (ii) had assistance of counsel relating to the decision to plead guilty; and (iii) has asserted his innocence. See Response at 4 (citing United States v. Lee, 535 Fed.Appx. 677, 680 (10th Cir.2013)(unpublished)). On the first factor that the United States identifies, it contends that Blattner’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. See Response at 4-5. Concerning Blattner’s assertion that he was under LSD’s influence at the time of his guilty plea, the United States argues the Court must assume that there was no communication regarding drug usage the day of the plea, because Blattner’s counsel would have been under an ethical obligation to continue the plea proceeding. See Response at 5.' According to the United States, Blattner’s counsel would have acted ethically under the circumstances. See Response at 5. The United States further asserts that the record completely belies Blattner’s contention that he was under LSD’s influence at the plea hearing. See Response at 5. It explains that Blattner affirmed on several occasions during the plea proceedings that he understood Chief Magistrate Molzen’s questions and the contents of the plea agreement, and that “his behavior during the plea hearing reflects a lucid and engaged participant.” Response at 5-6. Last, the United States contends that Blattner’s counsel never raised the possibility that his client did not understand the proceedings, which would have been required if something were amiss. See Response at 6.

The United States argues that the record reflects that, at the outset of the plea hearing, Blattner acknowledge that he was under oath and that he could be prosecuted for making a false statement during the proceeding. See Response at 6. According to the United’ States, Blattner. also acknowledged Chief Magistrate Molzen’s instruction that, if he did not understand everything, he should stop and ask for time to speak with his counsel or ask the Court to provide additional explanation. See Response at 6. The United States further asserts that Blattner “informed the Court that he had no serious physical or mental illnesses which could affect his ability to understand the proceedings.” Response at 6. The United States asserts that Blattner advised that he had “a little anxiety issue,” for which he was not taking any medication, but affirmed that he was able to function during the hearing with the anxiety. Response at 6. The United States also- maintains that Blattner “stated under oath that he was not under any influence of any drugs, medicines or alcohol.” Response at 6. According to the .United States, he also stated that he was able to understand everything that was happening, and he denied that there was anything interfering with his ability to comprehend the proceedings. See Response at 6.

The United States asserts that, during the length plea colloquy with Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen, Blattner coherently and rationally affirmed under oath that he was not impaired. See Response at 6. The United States insists that Blattner specifically stated that he was not under any substance’s influence, that he understood the proceedings, and that there is no evidence in the record to suggest otherwise. See Response at 6. The United States argues that many courts have held that the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is proper where there is no evidence to support that a plea was not knowing or voluntary because of an alleged impairment from drug influence. See Response at 7 (citing e.g., United States v. Freeze, 2006 WL 1897288, at *8 (S.D.Tex. July 7, 2006)(Jack, J.))., The United States further asserts:

The record does not corroborate the Defendant’s late .claim that he was unable to comprehend the substance of the plea proceeding because he was impaired by drug usage. Motion at 2-3. Defendant was keenly aware of the matters taking place during, the hearing, so much so that his capacity to challenge the factual basis' supporting his guilty plea initially halted the plea proceedings for a period of time. The Court. made several attempts to obtain the Defendant’s admission of facts to support the counts to which he was pleading guilty. Id. at 20:20-26:24. Defendant, however, always cagey, initially refused to admit to the facts underlying his possession of firearms on August 6 and August 17, 2012 or his exchanging of methamphetamine for firearms on those dates as charged in the superseding indictment, claiming lack of memory. Id. at 20-27. He admitted in the process that he reviewed all the evidence of the August 6, 2012 Sportsman’s Warehouse transaction with his lawyer, including viewing the store video, yet he refused to admit to anything other than shopping in the store. Id. at 25:11-20. In addition, when asked about the police locating firearms at his residence following his arrest on August 22, 2012, Defendant refused to admit to possessing the firearms, admitting only that they were located “at an individual’s residence .... That wasn’t my residence .... ” and that the guns were not in his possession—“they weren’t on my person, no ... I was unconscious ... I guess they found the weapons in the house.” Id. at 26:10-22. Indeed, the reports suggest that he had suffered a heroin overdose. He stated that he did not recall that the weapons were located in his bedroom, or that he fired two shots at the police. Id. at 26:25-27:3. Because the Defendant failed initially to acknowledge the factual basis for the guilty plea, Chief Magistrate Judge Mol-zen initially refused to accept his plea and advised that the matter would be set for Judge Browning’s trial calendar the following Monday. Id. at 27:7-16. It was only after the Court recessed and then resumed the proceedings approximately ten minutes later {id. at 28:14-15), that the Defendant admitted to the factual basis for the counts of conviction, based on questions posed to him by his counsel. Id. at 29:5-16. He admitted to giving methamphetamine to Elizabeth Taylor, the individual who purchased firearms for him, on two occasions, and admitted that when he gave the methamphetamine to Ms. Taylor he was in possession of the firearms identified in the superseding indictment. Id. at 29:18-30:2; 31:11-32:1.

Defendant confirmed that he was entering his guilty plea voluntarily, that no one was forcing him to plead guilty, and that he was aware he would receive a 30-year sentence if Judge Browning accepted his plea agreement. Id. at 32:2-11. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Defendant affirmed that he understood everything that was happening, that this is how he wanted to proceed with the hearing, and that he had sufficient time with his lawyer. Id. at 33:7-15.

Response at 7-9.

According to the United States, this lengthy plea colloquy demonstrates that Blattner was in control of his faculties. See Response at 9. It argues that Blattner’s initial refusal to acknowledge the factual basis for his plea even when video surveillance captured part of his activities reflects a deliberate attempt to limit the scope of his admissions to gain some future advantage. See Response at 9. The United States argues that, if Blattner were truly unable to comprehend the substance of the proceedings, he would not have been so guarded in his admissions. See Response at 9. The United States maintains that Blattner’s attempt to split hairs was disingenuous and intended to mislead. See Response at' 9. For example, according to the United States, Blattner stated: “[The guns] were located at an individual’s residence. That wasn’t my residence ... [the guns] weren’t on my person ... I was unconscious ... I guess they found the weapons in the house.” Response at 9.

Moreover, the United States maintains that the record does not support Blattner’s assertion that he was “unable to make a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternatives available to him” at the plea hearing. Response at 10 (quoting Motion at 3). According to the United States, Blattner considered terminating the plea proceedings over the factual basis for his August 6, 2012 possession of firearms, informing his counsel: “You know, let’s just go on and do the trial thing, man.” Response at 10 (quoting Plea Tr. at 25:21-22 (Blattner)). The United States asserts that this statement reflects that Blattner was aware that he was not locked into a requirement to enter his guilty plea during those proceedings, and that he had the right to terminate the proceedings and proceed to trial at any time. See Response at 10. According to the United States, at the plea hearing, Blattner in fact chose to proceed to trial, but decided to renew the plea proceedings following a break in action. See Response at 10.

The United States further asserts that Blattner’s plea was knowing and voluntary, because he entered into it with the knowledge of the “direct consequences” of his plea, and he understood that he was waiving his right to a jury trial, his right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, and his defenses. Response at 10-11. The United States also argues that Blattner’s plea was knowing and voluntary in that he had sufficient time to discuss the terms of the plea with his counsel. See Response at 11. The United States explains that Blattner admitted this fact and Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen recessed for nearly twenty minutes to give Blattner even more time to confer with his counsel. See Response at 11. The United States contends that, after the conference, Blattner advised the Court that he had enough time with his counsel and stated that he thought they had “figured it out.” Response at 11. He stated that his counsel had answered all of his questions, and that he was satisfied with his advice and representation. See Response at 11. According to the United States, Blattner affirmed that nobody was forcing or threatening him to plead guilty, and that he was voluntarily pleading guilty. The United States further explains:

In fact, at one point during the proceedings when the Court asked if anyone was pressuring him to plead guilty, Defendant laughed and Mr. Kochersberger responded, “other than the government?” to which Defendant replied, “Yeah, I love that question.” [Plea Tr.] at 18:1-5. That Defendant was able to engage in some levity with his counsel also demonstrates sound presence of mind. Following the government’s recitation of facts it could prove if the matter proceeded to trial, -Defendant entered guilty pleas to counts two and five of the superseding indictment. [Plea Tr.] at 20:14-19.

Response at 11-12.

The United States asserts that at no time during the plea hearing did Blattner demonstrate that he was under the influence of any drug such that his intellectual or emotional appreciation of the nature of the proceedings was impaired. See Response at 12. The United States contends that, if Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen recognized such behavior, she would have promptly terminated the proceedings. See Response at 12. Instead, the United States insists that Chief Magistrate Judge Mol-zen found Blattner “fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that he was aware of. the nature of the charges against him and the consequences of. his guilty pleas,.and that his pleas were knowing, voluntary and supported by an independent basis in fact containing all the elements of the offenses.” Response at 12. The United States maintains that, based on these findings, Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen accepted Blattner’s pleas, adjudged him guilty of the charged crimes, and deferred acceptance of the plea agreement to Judge Browning. See Response at 12.

The United States next argues that Blattner represented at the plea hearing that he was satisfied with his counsel’s advice and representation, and that he never expressed any discontentment with his counsel’s assistance. See Response at 11-12. According to the United States, Blattner does not assert a lack of assistance of counsel as a basis for withdrawing his guilty plea and that, in any event, the record does not reveal any evidence that Blattner’s counsel’s performance was deficient. See Response at 12. The United States contends that Mr. Kochersberger obtained a favorable plea agreement for Blattner and that Blattner admitted that: (i) Mr. Kochersberger told him of the Sentencing Guidelines’ advisory range and provided an estimate of Blattner’s applicable guideline range; (ii) they had sufficiently discussed the Plea Agreement’s terms, and had “figure[d] it out”; (iii) Mr. Ko-chersberger answered all of his questions, arid he was satisfied with his advice and representation; (iv) nobody was forcing or threatening him to plead guilty, and he was pleading guilty voluntarily. See Response at 13. Finally, the United States contends that, when it appeared that Blatt-ner was about to forfeit the plea deal, Mr. Kochersberger correctly counseled against proceeding to trial, telling Blattner that he thought that “was a poor decision.” Response at 14. According to the United States, Blattner obviously recognized his counsel’s advice, because, when he returned from the recess, he was prepared to enter a guilty plea. See Response at 14.

The United States next argues that Blattner has made no assertion of innocence in his Motion and that he never made such an assertion at the plea hearing. See Response at 14. The United States contends that Blattner never contested that a jury would find him guilty, despite initially being circumspect about making admissions of guilt. See Response at 14. According to the United States, Blattner ultimately admitted to specific facts supporting his guilt of the crimes with which he was convicted. See Response at 14. The United. States insists that the fact that Blattner does not assert his innocence in the Motion is telling and cuts against his request to withdraw his guilty plea. See Response at 14. According to the United States, “this Court has found no fair and just reason for withdrawal of a guilty plea where the defendant did not assert his innocence.” Response at 14 (citing United States v. Harmon, 871 F.Supp.2d 1125 (D.N.M.2012)(Browning, J.)). In sum, the United States contends that Blattner has not established that his plea was not knowing and voluntary, that he had ineffective assistance of counsel, and that he is innocent of the charges. See Response at 14. The. United States therefore asserts that Blattner has not met his burden to prove a fair and just reason for withdrawing his guilty plea, and that the Court should deny the Motion. See Response at 15.

The United States next argues that, although the Court need not address the remaining United States v. Yazzie, 407 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir.2005) factors, they nonetheless- also weigh against granting the Motion. See Response at 15. First, the United States argues that Blattner’s actions have already prejudiced the United States. See Response at 15. The United States contends that it has expended considerable time and energy in this prosecution opposing substantive motions, and that it has spent countless hours preparing witnesses, exhibits, and trial pleadings in preparation for the April 13, 2015 trial setting, which was vacated on the eve of trial with Blattner’s April 10, 2015 guilty plea. See Response at 15. The United States further asserts that the charged offenses took place more than three years ago, and that “[mjemories fade and the prosecution’s case can only weaken with the passage of time.” Response at 15. The United States maintains that it will now need to secure many lay and law enforcement witnesses, again for another trial setting. See Response at 15. According to the United States, “[bjecause the Defendant pleaded guilty seven months ago, the United States has not had any reason to maintain contact with the bevy of witnesses on whom it would rely to prove its case.” Response at 15-16. The United States therefore maintains that this factor weighs against permitting Blattner to withdraw his guilty plea. See Response at 16.

Second, the United States asserts that Blattner’s delay in filing the Motion is significant. See Response at 16. The United States contends that Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen held Blattner’s change of plea hearing on April 10, 2015, he filed his Motion on October 29, 2015, and he provides no reason for his nearly seven-month delay in filing his Motion. See Response at 16. The United States- therefore maintains that this factor weighs heavily against withdrawal of the plea. See Response at 17. Third, the United States asserts that permitting Blattner to withdraw his plea would inconvenience the Court and waste judicial resources. See Response at 17. Last, the United States asserts that, “[although it is not one of the Yazzie factors that the Court must address when a defendant moves to withdraw a guilty plea before sentencing, the Court may also consider the likelihood of conviction when assessing whether to permit withdrawal of a guilty plea.” Response at 18 (citing United States v. Carr, 80 F.3d 413, 421 n. 5 (10th Cir.1996)). The United States maintains that the likelihood of conviction in this case is great, explaining:

At the plea hearing, the government recited the facts underlying counts 2 and 5 of the superseding indictment that it could prove against Defendant if the matter proceeded to trial. PHT at 19:12-20:13. Following the recitation of those facts, Defendant entered guilty pleas to those counts. Id. at 20:14-19. Citing that the United States’ evidence was extremely strong against the Defendant, Assistant United States Attorney Louis Valencia advised Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen that the government could prove its charges through the testimony of Elizabeth Taylor, the individual who purchased the firearms for Defendant in exchange for methamphetamine, and through video footage depicting Defendant inside the Sportsman’s Warehouse store on August 6, 2015. Id. 24:15-25:10. In addition, Brittany Blattner, the Defendant’s former spouse, would also testify that Defendant gave Elizabeth Taylor methamphetamine in exchange for the firearms. Id. 25:5-7. Defendant himself acknowledged the strength of the government’s case when he stated: “[Tjhey have this evidence and can convict me if I don’t take the plea.” Id. at 22:11-12. Moreover, Defendant admitted to Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen when she asked if he had the firearms identified in the superseding indictment on his person at the time of the transfer of methamphetamine to Elizabeth Taylor, that ‘Tes, I’m sure I did.” Id. at 31:11-32:1.

Response at 18-19.

3. Blattner’s Reply.

Blattner did not file a reply to the United States’ Response to his Motion.

4. The Hearings on the Motion.

The Court held hearings on the Motion on November 23, 2015, December 2, 2015, and December 9, 2015. At the November 23, 2015, hearing, Blattner and Dr. Telia testified. See Nov. 23 Tr. at 6:9-87:18 (Blattner, Court, Goldberg, Kochersber-ger, Telia, Torrez). At the December 2, 2015, hearing, Blattner, Dr. Goldberg, and Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center officials Sergeant Rita Archuleta, Ortega, and Valdo testified. See Dec. 2 Tr. at 4:10-114:15 (Archuleta, Blattner, Court, Goldberg, Kochersberger, Ortega, Segotta, Telia, Torrez, Valdo), Finally, at the December 9, 2015, hearing, Heard testified, see Dec. 9 Tr. at 6:13-35:23 (Court, Heard, Kochersberger, Torrez), and the parties then took up argument on the Motion, see Dec. 9 Tr. at 36:2-63:19 (Court, Kochers-berger, Torrez).

Blattner first argued in support of the Motion. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 36:2-43:13 (Court, Kochersberger). Blattner first argued that “it is probably uncontroversial that if he was under LSD’s influence at the time of his plea, that would have affected his ability to both understand the proceedings, comprehend the consequences, and intelligently make a decision on whether or not to do the plea.” Dec. 9 Tr. at 36:10-16 (Kochersberger). Blattner argued that the central issue then is whether he was truly under LSD’s influence at the time he entered the plea. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 36:24-37:2 (Kochersberger). According to Blattner, the evidence in support of LSD’s influence are primarily his own testimony bolstered by the fact that he told his lawyer on that day that he was under LSD’s influence. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 37:3-6 (Kochersberger). Blattner also argued that the “seemingly unusual choice of drugs” bolsters his credibility, given the testimony that LSD is an unusual substance in the correctional setting. Dec. 9 Tr. at 37:21-25 (Kochersber-ger). According to Blattner, if he were to make up a story, it would be more likely that he would pick a drug that is more pervasive, such as heroin or Suboxone. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 37:25-38:12 (Kochersberger). Blattner further asserted that the fact that it was a prolonged, odd plea hearing, in which Blattner seemed preoccupied with just getting away from the podium and not having to deal with the proceedings, supports his argument. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 38:13-17 (Kochersberger). Blattner argued that that is consistent “with Dr. Goldberg’s understanding of the manifestation of someone being under the hallucinations of LSD, wanting to avoid dealing with reality.” Dec. 9 Tr. at 38:17-21 (Kochersber-ger). Moreover, Blattner contended that his plea hearing behavior is consistent with someone wanting to get away from the hearing itself. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 38:21-24 (Kochersberger).

Blattner contended that nothing which he exhibited at the plea is inconsistent with him being on LSD, and that the testimony from Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center officials suggests that someone could get drugs and use them before a plea hearing. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 39:2-9 (Kochers-berger). He further asserted that Dr. Goldberg “found instances that he thought evidenced, to some extent, Mr. Blattner’s use of LSD; the somewhat odd laughing during the proceeding, which could be explained admittedly by Dr. Goldberg and by myself here, maybe by Mr. Blattner’s sense of humor— But Dr. Goldberg found it to be remarkable.” Dec. 9 Tr. at 40:1-7 (Kochersberger). Finally, Blattner asserted that his prospects for a better deal are very bleak. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 42:6-7 (Kochersberger). According to Blattner, “if he withdraws his plea, his consequences are far worse, in the event of a likely trial conviction.” Dec. 9 Tr. at 42:7-9 (Kochers-berger). Blattner contended that reality leads to the conclusion that he is “telling the truth, that he didn’t know what he was doing, and he needs an opportunity to make a knowing and intelligent decision if, in fact, he’s going to ever enter into a plea.” Dec. 9 Tr. at 42:11-14 (Kochersber-ger). The Court then asked Blattner who has the burden of proof of establishing that Blattner was on or not on LSD on that day. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 42:17-19 (Court). Blattner responded that he believed Blattner has the burden of proof of showing that he was on LSD and maintained that all of the evidence indicates that Blattner has met his burden. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 42:20-43:8 (Kochersberger).

The United States then took up argument on the Motion. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 43:12-17 (Court, Torrez). The United States first asserted that, for the Court to grant the Motion, it must find Blattner credible. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 43:14-16 (Tor-rez). According to the United States, “that’s where their case fails.” Dec. 9 Tr. at 43:16-17 (Torrez). First, the United States contended that, although Blattner asserts that he got the LSD in his cell, he has refused to name his source. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 43:18-20 (Torrez). Second, the United States argued that the seven-month delay weighs against the Court granting the Motion. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 43:21-2-5 (Torrez). Moreover, the United States maintained that Blattner has been proven to be a liar and that he will manipulate a situation, no matter what the circumstances are. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 44:25 (Tor-rez). The United States argued that, at his plea hearing, Blattner had one-hundred and one responses that were coherent and responsive. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 44:11-13 (Torrez). The United States further asserted that, if Blattner’s counsel was concerned that Blattner could not take a plea based on Blattner telling him on the day of the plea hearing that he was under LSD’s influence, he would have brought it to the attention of the Court, but that did not happen. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 43:14-21 (Tor-rez).

The United States next argued that Blattner’s laughter during the plea hearing can be attributed to his high sensitivity to humor. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 45:2-21 (Torrez). The United Statés countered Blattner’s assertion that he was trying to get through the proceeding by noting that Chief Magistrate Judge Molzen asked whether he needed some more time and that Blattner responded that he needed a few minutes to speak with his counsel. See Dec. 9 Tr. at 45:22-46:3 (Torrez). According to the United States, Blattner then took a