DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Presently before this Court is Defendant Marcellus Overton’s motion to withdraw the guilty plea he entered on November 26, 2018. (Docket No. 286, 290.) The government opposes the motion. (Docket No. 288.) For the following reasons, Overton’s motion is denied, and the parties are directed to abide by the sentencing schedule and appear for sentencing, as set out below. II. BACKGROUND A. Plea Proceedings On January 13, 2015, a federal grand jury returned a 2-count indictment against Overton charging him with sex trafficking, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1591 (a)(1) and (b)(2), and interstate transportation of a minor for purposes of prostitution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2423 (a). (Docket No. 1.) The grand jury later returned a superseding indictment to add new allegations to the original charges. (Docket No. 104.) On November 26, 2018, the eve of trial, Overton waived indictment and pleaded guilty to a superseding information charging him with conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of a minor, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1594 (c). (Docket Nos. 207-210.) In his plea agreement and at his plea colloquy, Overton admitted that he trafficked a 17-year-old minor (referred to as Victim 1) for purposes of prostitution between December 2012 and March 2013. (Docket Nos. 209, 244.) In particular, Overton admitted that he transported Victim 1 from Olean, N.Y., to Niagara Falls, N.Y., and conspired to solicit prostitution appointments for Victim 1 through online advertisements posted on Backpage.com. (Plea Agreement, Docket No. 209, 8; Plea Transcript, Docket No. 244, p. 18.) Overton further admitted that he transported or arranged for the transportation of Victim 1 to her prostitution appointments and rented or arranged for the rental of the hotel rooms at which Victim 1′s prostitution appointments took place. (Id.) Overton further admitted that he received a share of Victim 1′s earnings from her prostitution activities. (Id.) Through his plea agreement and plea colloquy, Overton also confirmed his understanding of his sentencing exposure. Overton acknowledged that he faces a maximum statutory sentence of life imprisonment, a fine of $250,000, a mandatory $100 special assessment, and a term of supervised release of five years to life. (Plea Agreement, 1; Plea Transcript, pp. 14-16.) He further acknowledged that his sentencing exposure under the sentencing guidelines is likely 135-168 months’ imprisonment, a fine of $17,500 to $175,000, and a term of supervised release of five years to life. (Plea Agreement,
9-16; Plea Transcript, pp. 19-22.) Notwithstanding this exposure, Overton and the government agree pursuant to Rule 11 (c)(1)(C) that a sentence of no fewer than 90 months’ and no more than 213 months’ imprisonment is an appropriate sentence in this case. (Plea Agreement, 17.) Overton indicated that he understood this portion of the agreement. (Plea Transcript, pp. 11, 21-23.) During the plea allocution, Overton confirmed that he had no difficulty understanding this Court or his lawyer; that he understood the terms and conditions of the government’s Rule 11 (c)(1)(C) plea offer; that he was satisfied with his lawyer; and that he was not incapacitated in any way due to medication, alcohol, or other controlled substances. (Plea Transcript, pp. 5, 7, 8-9, 10.) He also confirmed that he was entering his plea voluntarily, without fear of violence, intimidation, or threats of any kind. (Id. pp. 9, 26, 28.) B. Post-plea Proceedings At the conclusion of the plea proceeding, this Court scheduled sentencing for March 20, 2019. (Docket No. 210.) Overton, however, was convinced that the government failed to produce all exculpatory materials in discovery, and he questioned his attorney’s effectiveness in failing to obtain those materials before he entered his guilty plea. (Affirmation of Mark A. Foti, Esq. (“Foti Aff.”), Docket No. 261-1, 12.1) Consequently, this Court appointed independent counsel to advise Overton as to any attorney-conflict issues stemming from his ineffectiveness concerns and as to whether it was in his best interests to pursue a motion to withdraw his plea under Rule 11 (d) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or proceed to sentencing. (Docket Nos. 222, 223, 224.) Thereafter, in an attempt to allay Overton’s disclosure concerns, and to facilitate resolution of any possible attorney-conflict issues, the government voluntarily agreed to produce materials pursuant to a protective order. (Foti Aff., 15; Docket No. 241.) The government subsequently made multiple disclosures in response to Overton’s multiple requests, including producing previously undisclosed material relating to Special Agent Karen Wisniewski, a witness whom the government did not intend to call at trial, but for whom Overton had requested pretrial discovery. (Foti Aff.,
