A federal court judge has not yet ruled on a traffic stop defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea but the United States attorney for the eastern district of North Carolina has entered his opposition in the court record.

In his opposition, Michael F. Easley Jr. said, of the defendant, Yacine Rahmani, “The defendant cannot show a fair and just reason to allow his withdrawal … The  defendant’s  alleged  concerns  do  not  have  merit  either (to) facts known by the parties or the law. Within his own motion, the defendant admits his guilt … A defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea.”

Rahmani and his co-defendant Bryan Walter Riccaldo were arrested during a 2020 traffic stop by the Halifax County Sheriff’s Office in which 47 bricks of heroin and about a pound of marijuana was seized. Previous court documents have tied the men to reputed Rocky Mount Blood leader  Tyrone “Ty Nitty” Foreman.

Opposition

In outlining his opposition, Easley said that on August 2 Rahmani, with a sworn French interpreter assisting, waived indictment and acknowledged he understood his plea. “This court then went over the defendant’s plea agreement with him including the elements of the offenses included in the agreement, the defendant’s appellate waiver, and the consequences of pleading guilty.”

Easley wrote that after acknowledging his complete understanding of the hearing, the consequences of his plea, and the substance and consequences of the plea agreement, the defendant pleaded guilty to his criminal information. 

Easley said the concerns cited by Rahmani in his motion are factually and legally false and do not warrant withdrawal of his guilty plea.

Rahmani said in his motion his lack of understanding of his plea agreement and the purpose it served, his innocence and the alleged failures and threats made by his former attorney led him to file the motion. 

He claimed his former attorney “seized on his lack of understanding of English to mislead him as to the nature and consequences of the plea agreement. Therefore, when the defendant signed the plea agreement, the defendant claims he did not know what he was signing.”

Built in measures

But, Easley wrote, “Fortunately — or unfortunately for the defendant — the federal system built in measures to protect someone from this type of alleged activity … Under oath and with an interpreter, the defendant acknowledged his understanding of this information as the court provided it to him. Although little time should be given to this topic, the defendant’s alleged lack of understanding of English should be addressed.”

Rahmani is proficient in English, Easley said. “As noted by the defendant, he spoke with federal investigators three separate times in perfect English. The defendant never once brought up concerns with not understanding English, nor did he have trouble discussing his involvement in the narcotics conspiracy in English. The defendant then filed his pro se motion in English.”

Easley then addresses Rahmani’s allegation that he pleaded to crimes he did not commit. “The defendant then explains what actions he took. ‘I was just a driver for my co-defendant and I had no knowledge of the drugs nor the gun found in the car. [sic] the only thing I was aware of was the marijuana but my lawyer told me that I’m responsible for what was in the car even if I’m innocent because I was driving the car.’” 

The smoking gun in his claim of innocence, Easley wrote, was that, “Within this claim of innocence, the defendant explains his guilt. The defendant continuously told investigators that he knew he was driving Bryan Riccaldo to deliver marijuana, a controlled substance. The defendant claims he did not know about the heroin or fentanyl. However, cooperating defendants told investigators the defendant was present at hand-to-hand transactions of heroin and fentanyl. On two occasions, Investigators saw the defendant present with Mr. Riccaldo at deals where heroin and fentanyl were distributed.”

Wrote Easley: “Whether the defendant knew of the heroin and fentanyl or not, the defendant is guilty of his charges under the law. It is not necessary for the government to prove that a defendant knew the exact nature or amount of the controlled substance for which the defendant possessed, distributed, or conspired to possess or distribute.” 

Even  if  his claim is true, “the defendant conspired and possessed controlled substances and knew the substance possessed and distributed was controlled.”

Former attorney knew the law

Easley said the reality of the case is the defendant pleaded guilty to what he is responsible for. His former attorney understood the law and “knew the defendant would be held responsible for the heroin and fentanyl he brought down from New York. (His attorney) then negotiated a plea which assisted the defendant in avoiding a mandatory minimum sentence. The defendant says he wanted to plead guilty to what he was responsible for. (His attorney’s) representation allowed him to do just that.”

In December United States District Judge James C. Dever III did allow a new attorney for Rahmani but did not immediately rule on the withdrawal of his guilty plea.

Rahmani entered a guilty plea to charges lodged against him that in count 1 the two men knowingly and intentionally conspired to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute heroin, marijuana, and fentanyl and in count two they aided and abetted one another to possess and distribute heroin and marijuana. 

The amount attributable to Riccaldo is a kilogram or more of heroin, a quantity of marijuana, and 400 grams or more of fentanyl.

The amount attributable to Rahmani is 100 grams or more of heroin, a quantity of marijuana, and 400 grams or more of heroin.

Riccaldo waived indictment in October and pleaded guilty to two counts.