
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Jeffrey T. SWARTZ, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-3945-cr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Feb. 8, 2012.
    Marjorie M. Smith, Piermont, NY, for Appellant.
    Joseph J. Karaszewski, Assistant United States Attorney (William J. Hochul, Jr., United States Attorney for the Western District of New York, on the brief), Buffalo, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: JOSÉ A. CABRANES, CHESTER J. STRAUB, DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Defendant-appellant Jeffrey Swartz appeals from a September 22, 2010 judgment of the District Court convicting him of attempted production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2251(a) and (e), and sentencing him principally to a fifteen-year term of imprisonment, to be followed by a fifteen-year period of supervised release. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and the procedural history, some of which we briefly reiterate here.

This appeal arises out of Swartz’s prosecution for production of child pornography and other related offenses. On June 11, 2010, after extensive pretrial proceedings — which included a guilty plea by Swartz and its subsequent withdrawal, as well as four changes of counsel — Swartz pleaded guilty for a second time to the crime of attempted production of child pornography. Three months later, just prior to sentencing, Swartz filed a pro se motion to withdraw his second guilty plea. On September 14, 2010, after a conference with the parties, the District Court denied the motion, holding that Swartz had demonstrated no fair and just reason for the court to permit withdrawal of the plea.

On appeal, Swartz argues that the District Court erred by refusing to permit him to withdraw his second plea of guilty, which he alleges was made under pressure from his counsel and the court. Swartz claims that he has shown two fair and just reasons for withdrawing his guilty plea: (1) that he is actually innocent, and (2) that there are significant questions about the voluntariness of his plea. Specifically, Swartz alleges that the District Court improperly interjected itself into plea negotiations in violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and that the court did not fully comply with the affirmative requirements of that rule— namely, the requirement to engage in a colloquy with the defendant in order to ensure that his plea was voluntary and not the result of improper pressure or threats. Swartz asks that we vacate his conviction and remand for further proceedings, or in the alternative, that we remand for an evidentiary hearing on the question of whether he should be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty.

After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that Swartz’s arguments on appeal are meritless. We therefore AFFIRM the September 22, 2010 judgment of the District Court.  