Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty — United States v. Ukashat (Document 234)

Summary

A Motion to Withdraw Plea of Guilty, filed August 25, 2025 as Document 234 in United States of America v. Mubarak Sulaiman Ukashat, Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN, in the U.S. District Court for the State of Utah before Judge Howard C. Nielson Jr. The Defendant, proceeding pro se, moves under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to withdraw the guilty plea, citing a "fair and just reason." The motion states that exculpatory evidence was in the custody of Interpol Washington, D.C., and that defense counsel was ineffective. It asks the Court to permit withdrawal of the plea, vacate the judgment entered upon the plea, and grant further relief. The listed exhibits are email correspondence with defense counsel and a draft summary from Nigerian counsel.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN       Document 234        Filed 08/25/25   PageID.1486     Page 1 of 4




                    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                               FOR THE STATE OF UTAH


                                  United States of America
                                                 V.

                          Mubarak Sulaiman Ukashat, Defendant.




  Case No: 2:23-dr-00111-HCN
  Honorable Judge Howard C. Nielson Jr.,




                    MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLEA OF GUILTY



  COMES NOW the Defendant, Mubarak Sulaiman Ukashat, proceeding prose, and respect-

  fully moves this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule ll(d)(2)(B) of the Federal Rules of

  Criminal Procedure, to withdraw the guilty plea previously entered in this case. In support

  of this motion, Defendant states as follows:



  I. Legal Standard

  Under Rule ll(d)(2)(B), a defendant may withdraw a plea of guilty after the Court ac-

  cepts the plea, but before sentencing, if the defendant can show a "fair and just reason."
  Courts consider whether the plea was knowing and voluntary, whether ineffective assistance

  of counsel was involved, and whether new evidence has come to light.




                                                 1
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN         Document 234       Filed 08/25/25     PageID.1487        Page 2 of 4




  II. Grounds for Withdrawal

  A. Withholding of Exculpatory Evidence

  At the time of plea negotiations, exculpatory evidence existed in the custody of Interpol

  Washington, D.C. Defendant repeatedly informed counsel of this evidence, and Nigerian

  counsel provided supporting documentation. However, neither defense counsel nor the pros-

  ecution ensured that the Court or Defendant had access to this critical material. This

  omission deprived Defendant of the ability to make an informed decision.


  B. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

  Defense counsel failed to:

     • Obtain and present the Interpol evidence, despite being alerted to its existence;

     • Ensure mitigation materials and letters of support were timely submitted;

     • Present Defendant's concrete restitution plan of making substantial yearly payments,

        thereby allowing the prosecution to argue misleadingly that restitution would take

        "over 100 years" to complete.

     These failures directly impacted Defendant's ability to assess the risks of trial versus plea,

  rendering the plea unknowing and involuntary.


  C. History of Ineffective Representation

  This Court is aware that Defendant's prior retained counsel was previously removed for

  ineffective assistance after failing to prepare or present essential materials during pretrial

  proceedings. The recurrence of such representation issues establishes a pattern of deficient

  counsel that prejudiced Defendant throughout the plea process.




                                                 2
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN       Document 234       Filed 08/25/25    PageID.1488      Page 3 of 4



  III. Prejudice to Defendant

  The guilty plea was entered without full knowledge of available defenses, material evidence,

  or mitigating circumstances. Had the Defendant been properly advised and had the Interpol

  evidence and restitution plan been presented, there is a reasonable probability that the plea

  would not have been accepted and instead would have proceeded to trial.



  IV. Relief Requested

  WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

     1. Permit Defendant to withdraw his guilty plea pursuant to-Fed. R. Crim. P. ll(d)(2)(B);

     2. Vacate the judgment entered upon the plea; and

     3. Grant such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.




  Respectfully submitted,




  Dated: August 25, 2025




  Mubarak Sulaiman Ukashat

  Pro Se

  30 West 100 North Apt. 1

  Kaysville, UT, 84037

  3853947072



                                               3
Case 2:23-cr-00111-HCN       Document 234     Filed 08/25/25    PageID.1489      Page 4 of 4



  Exhibits

     1. Exhibit Al through A4 ~ Email correspondence with defense counsel regarding Interpol

       letter.

     2. Exhibit B: Draft summary provided by Nigerian counsel regarding the Interpol letter

       (for context only).




                                             4


File and source

File

234.pdf

Size

90,137 bytes

SHA-256

3891cf0e1050d0a5e04aa51f17e8115aedb054ff8c9b0932803e3bfeca13f7b4

Our copy

234.pdf

Original

archive.org