MEMORANDUM as to Ayaz Qureshi — USA v. Qureshi (Dkt. 36)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland · No. 1:22-cr-00330-RDB · Doc. 36 · 2023-11-30 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
* 
 
  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
v. 
 
    
 
 
* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AYAZ QURESHI,  
 
 
* 
Criminal No. RDB-22-0330 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
* 
 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
MEMORANDUM  
On September 19, 2022, Defendant Ayaz Qureshi was charged in a one count Criminal 
Information with Wire Fraud Conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. (ECF No. 1.) He 
pled guilty on October 14, 2022. (ECF No. 7.) Sentencing was scheduled for February 2, 2023 
but was twice postponed at the joint request of the parties. (ECF Nos. 10, 14, 15.) On August 
29, 2023, Qureshi, through newly retained counsel, moved to withdraw his plea of guilty 
pursuant to Rule 11(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (ECF No. 20.) The 
parties’ submissions have been reviewed, and the Court conducted an motions hearing on 
November 29, 2023. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2023). For the reasons set forth on the 
record and now more fully set below, Qureshi’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea (ECF No. 
20) was GRANTED on November 29, 2023.  
BACKGROUND 
The facts of the underlying criminal case remain in dispute and a jury trial will be 
scheduled. In brief, according to the single count Information, Qureshi allegedly conspired 
with a financial services business operator to submit a Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) 
loan application on March 14, 2021 to a financial services institution on behalf of Yazee, Inc., 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-RDB   Document 36   Filed 11/30/23   Page 1 of 6

2 
 
of which Qureshi was the President. (Id. ¶ 2–5, 12–13.) The PPP loan application was allegedly 
signed by Qureshi on March 21, 2021. (Id. ¶ 15.) On March 22, 2021, approximately 
$250,723.00 was distributed by the financial services institution into Yazee’s bank account 
through PPP loan. (Id. ¶ 20.) Qureshi thereafter allegedly distributed approximately 30 percent 
of the funded loan amount, i.e. $75,000.00, to his alleged co-conspirator as a kickback 
payment. (Id. ¶ 21–22.) The majority of the remaining funds were thereafter allegedly 
distributed to Qureshi, his wife, and other alleged associates that purported to be employees 
of Yazee. (Id. ¶ 25–26.) It was agreed by Government counsel at the hearing of November 29, 
2023 that this was the totality of the alleged criminal activity. 
On September 19, 2022, Defendant Ayaz Qureshi was charged with a single count 
Information for Wire Fraud Conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. (ECF No. 1.) On 
October 14, 2022, at his arraignment that lasted nearly two hours and during which the Court 
read the Information to the Defendant verbatim, Qureshi pled guilty. (ECF No. 7.) Sentencing 
was scheduled for February 2, 2023 but was twice postponed at the request of the parties. 
(ECF Nos. 10, 14, 15.)  
On August 29, 2023, Qureshi, through newly retained counsel, filed the instant Motion 
to Withdraw Guilty Plea. (ECF No. 20.) In his Motion, Qureshi argues that he did not possess 
the cognitive functioning to comprehend the nature of the conspiracy charge nor the plea 
agreement, that he required the assistance of an interpreter in Court, that his former counsel 
provided ineffective assistance, and that he is innocent of the charge of conspiracy. (Id..) In its 
Response, the Government contends that Qureshi’s plea was knowing and voluntary, that he 
has not credibly asserted his legal innocence, that there was a delay of more than ten months 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-RDB   Document 36   Filed 11/30/23   Page 2 of 6

3 
 
between his guilty plea and his motion to withdraw, that he had the close assistance of counsel, 
and that his claims as to his purported disability are meritless. (ECF No. 25.) The Court 
conducted a motions hearing on November 29, 2023, and testimony was presented by Mr. 
Qureshi and Michael Mintz, a psychologist. (ECF No. 31.)  
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(d), “[t]here is no absolute right to 
withdraw a guilty plea . . . .” United States v. Ubakanma, 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000) 
(citations omitted). Rather, a defendant may withdraw a guilty plea if “the defendant can show 
a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “[A] ‘fair 
and just’ reason is one that ‘essentially challenges’ the fairness of a proceeding under Fed. R. 
Crim. P. 11.” Ubakanma, 215 F.3d at 424 (quoting United States v. Puckett, 61 F.3d 1092, 1099 
(4th Cir. 1995)). “Thus, when a district court considers the plea withdrawal motion, the inquiry 
is ordinarily confined to whether the underlying plea was both counseled and voluntary.” 
United States v. Nicholson, 676 F.3d 376, 384 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Bowman, 348 
F.3d 408, 414 (4th Cir. 2003)). A properly conducted Rule 11 guilty plea colloquy “raises a 
strong presumption that the plea is final and binding.” Nicholson, 676 F.3d at 384 (quoting 
Bowman, 348 F.3d at 414). The decision whether to grant a motion for the withdrawal of a 
guilty plea is committed to the District Court’s discretion. United States v. Craig, 985 F.2d 175, 
178 (4th Cir. 1993). 
ANALYSIS 
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit considers six circumstantial 
factors when determining whether a defendant has shown a fair and just reason for requesting 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-RDB   Document 36   Filed 11/30/23   Page 3 of 6

4 
 
withdrawal of a guilty plea:  
 (1) whether the defendant has offered credible evidence that his plea was not 
knowing or not voluntary, (2) whether the defendant has credibly asserted his 
legal innocence, (3) whether there has been a delay between the entering of the 
plea and the filing of the motion, (4) whether defendant has had close assistance 
of competent counsel, (5) whether withdrawal will cause prejudice to the 
government, and (6) whether it will inconvenience the court and waste judicial 
resources.  
 
United States v. Moore, 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991). “[T]he first, second and fourth Moore 
factors ‘speak most straightforwardly to the question whether the movant has a fair and just 
reason to upset settled systemic expectations’ by withdrawing a guilty plea.” United States v. 
Amador, 214 F. App’x 303, 305 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Sparks, 67 F.3d 1145, 
1154 (4th Cir. 1995)).  
 
As to the first factor, the Court made a factual finding at the November 29, 2023 
motions hearing that the Defendant’s guilty plea was not made knowingly and voluntarily 
given the Defendant’s inability to fully comprehend what was being said to him during the 
arraignment hearing due to its length and complexity. (ECF No. 31.) The Court made no 
finding as to the second factor of legal innocence. (Id.) Regarding the third factor, the Court 
found that although there were was a time gap between the entry of the guilty plea and the 
filing of Defendant’s motion to withdraw from the plea agreement, the delay was not entirely 
Defendant’s fault as sentencing had been rescheduled twice at the request of both parties. (Id.) 
As to the fourth factor, the Court found that there was not a sufficient connection between 
Defendant and his prior counsel of record, Thomas Maronick, because Defendant lacked 
counsel’s close assistance in understanding the charges and plea agreement. (Id.) However, the 
Court specifically found that there was no basis to contend alleged ineffective assistance of 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-RDB   Document 36   Filed 11/30/23   Page 4 of 6

5 
 
counsel. Regarding the fifth factor, the Court found that granting Defendant’s motion would 
not be unduly prejudicial to the Government. (Id.) As to the sixth factor, the Court found that 
granting the Defendant’s motion would not waste judicial resources. (Id.) 
In sum, the Court’s findings led to the conclusion that Defendant had a fair and just 
reason to withdraw his plea of guilty because he did not fully understand the nature of the 
conspiracy charge against him. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth on the record and above, 
Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea (ECF No. 20) was GRANTED.  
Secondarily, as the Government has aptly noted, pursuant to paragraph 18 of the plea 
agreement, Defendant agreed that he would not move to withdraw from the plea of guility 
from this agreement. (ECF No. 25-1 ¶ 18.) The plea agreement further provided that the 
Government may oppose a two-level adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) and decline to 
make a motion under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) if Defendant attempts to withdraw his guilty plea. 
(Id. ¶ 6(c).) At the November 29, 2023 motions hearing, counsel for Defendant noted that 
Defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty consistuted a breach of the plea agreement. 
Accordingly, the Government is relieved of its obligations under the agreement as specified 
above. (ECF No. 25 at 22–24.) 
 
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-RDB   Document 36   Filed 11/30/23   Page 5 of 6

6 
 
CONCLUSION 
For the reasons stated on the record and above, Defendant Ayaz Qureshi’s Motion to 
Withdraw Guilty Plea (ECF No. 20) was GRANTED. 
 
A separate Order (ECF No. 35) was issued on November 29, 2023.  
 
Dated: November 30, 2023  
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ 
Richard D. Bennett 
United States Senior District Judge 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-RDB   Document 36   Filed 11/30/23   Page 6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mdd.519685.36.0.pdf

Size

111,680 bytes

SHA-256

2bbe90f3001cd8419b767c6fef18def8762b7ac571117a2a1f68a2e35ae14725

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mdd.519685.36.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)