MEMORANDUM OF DECISION & ORDER In this narcotics prosecution, defendant entered a guilty plea before a United States Magistrate Judge after the commencement of jury selection on May 9, 2022, which was promptly transcribed and accepted by Judge Hurley on May 11, 2022. Docket Entry (“DE”) Nos. 123, 126. Meanwhile, defendant, who was represented by retained counsel at that time, had misgivings. He wrote a letter to Judge Hurley on May 11, 2022 asking to withdraw his plea, and then “put it in the door” of his cell so that it could be mailed to the Court. DE 129. The letter was postmarked May 13, 2022, date stamped May 16, 2022, and docketed May 17, 2022. Id. As a result of that letter, Terry’s counsel — his fifth in this case — moved to be relieved as counsel on May 18, 2022. DE 131. Terry moves to withdraw his plea, seeking the benefit of the “prison mailbox rule” applicable to pro se litigants. DE 140. If that rule is applied to his letter, he argues, his request to withdraw preceded the district court’s acceptance of the plea, and thus he is entitled to do withdrawal for “any reason or no reason” under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(1). Id. In the alternative, defendant requests to withdraw the plea based upon the demonstration of “a fair and just reason” under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). DE 140 at 4. Because I find that defendant (1) is not entitled the benefit of a rule applicable to unrepresented parties because he was represented at the relevant time (and throughout these proceedings), and (2) has failed to “show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal,” the motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND Some of the history of this case is set forth in Judge Hurley’s opinion denying a motion by defendant for a non-jury trial, and ruling on fourteen items of pretrial relief, which are incorporated by reference herein. United States v. Terry, No. 18-CR-560 (DRH), 2020 WL 7343232, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 14, 2020); United States v. Terry, No. 18-CR-560 (DRH), 2020 WL 7711863, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2020). Subsequent to those determinations, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment on May 26, 2021. DE 77. The case was prepared and scheduled for trial to commence in June 2021, but jury selection was cancelled due to last-minute request by defendant to discharge his CJA attorney and appear with retained counsel. Electronic Order dated June 21, 2021. Four months later, retained counsel, Aaron Mysliwiec appeared. DE 100. Jury selection was scheduled for the second time for May 9, 2022. DE 101. In the weeks leading up to trial, Mr. Mysliwiec negotiated a plea agreement by which the Government would agree to limit its sentencing recommendation to 15 years’ incarceration, a significant concession given that defendant faced a Guidelines range minimum of 27 years. DE 139-3 4. Defendant advised his counsel that he would prefer to reject that offer and proceed to trial. Id. at 5. Jury selection commenced, as scheduled, on May 9, 2022. DE 121; 139-3 6. According to Mr. Mysliwiec, “[d]uring the morning session after the prospective jurors began answering questions, Mr. Terry passed me a post-it note that said ‘tough crowd.’” DE 139-3 6. During lunch, the defendant and his attorney conferred, discussing the demographics of the jurors, the attorney’s assessment of the strength of the Government’s case, and the likelihood of his conviction on two of the counts. Id. at 6. According to his counsel, Mr. Terry then asked the attorney to inquire as to whether the Government’s offer remained open. The prosecutor reduced the agreement to writing which enabled Messrs. Mysliwiec and Terry to review it together. Id. at
