ORDER

VICKI MILES-LaGRANGE, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Previously Entered Plea, filed May 18, 2016. On June 3, 2016, the government responded. On June 14, 2016, defendant filed his reply, and on June 24, 2016, the government filed its sur-reply. Also before the Court is Defendant Harms' Motion to Abate Forfeiture Proceedings and Other Post Plea Orders, filed May 12, 2015. Based on the parties' submissions, the Court makes its determination.

On April 15, 2016, defendant changed his plea and pled guilty to Count 2 of the Indictment, possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) and (b)(2). Defendant now moves to withdraw his guilty plea. Specifically, defendant contends that due to his previous counsel's advice, he did not knowingly enter his plea.

"Defendants do not have an absolute right to withdraw a guilty plea. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e), [i]f a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is made before sentence is imposed, the court may permit the plea to be withdrawn if the defendant shows any fair and just reason. The burden is on the defendant to establish a fair and just reason for the withdrawal of the plea." United States v. Siedlik, 231 F.3d 744, 748 (10th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Tenth Circuit has set forth the following seven factors a court should consider in determining whether a defendant has met his burden of proof: (1) whether the defendant has asserted his innocence; (2) whether the government will be prejudiced if the motion is granted; (3) whether the defendant has delayed in filing the motion; (4) the inconvenience to the court if the motion is granted; (5) the quality of the defendant's assistance of counsel; (6) whether the plea was knowing and voluntary; and (7) whether the granting of the motion would cause a waste of judicial resources. Id. at 749.1

Defendant contends that there is a fair and just reason for allowing him to withdraw his plea. Defendant contends that his previous counsel advised him that due to, at the time, no other judicial district sustaining a motion to suppress in similar cases as defendant's, he should accept the plea agreement offered to him.2 Defendant asserts that he did not knowingly enter his plea and that he was bereft of the necessary information to have made such decision knowingly and thereby his plea was involuntary.3 The government contends that defendant has failed to meet his burden in establishing a fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea. Specifically, the government contends that defendant has (1) failed to assert his innocence; (2) his plea was knowing and voluntary; (3) his counsel was competent and not ineffective; and (4) allowing defendant to withdraw his plea would prejudice the government, excuse a delayed filing, inconvenience the Court and waste judicial resources.

Having carefully reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court finds that defendant has met his burden of establishing a fair and just reason for withdrawing his plea. Specifically, the Court finds that based on defendant's prior counsel's admission of potential ineffective assistance of counsel and expression of doubt that defendant's plea was made knowingly and voluntary, the fact there was, contrary to the government's contention, no delay in filing defendant's motion to withdraw his plea, and the fact there is virtually no inconvenience to the Court or waste of judicial resources, outside of conducting, defendant's change of plea hearing, defendant should be allowed to withdraw his plea. The Court acknowledges the government's contention that defendant never asserted his innocence and that it may be prejudiced due to other defendants in similar cases wanting to withdraw their pleas; however, the Court finds those factors do not weigh more heavily against defendant withdrawing his plea as the other factors stated above weigh in favor of defendant withdrawing his plea. Therefore, defendant should be allowed to withdraw his plea.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Previously Entered Plea [docket no. 34]. Further, in light of the Court's ruling on defendant's motion to withdraw plea, the Court GRANTS Defendant Harms' Motion to Abate Forfeiture Proceedings and Other Post Plea Orders [docket no. 33] and HOLDS in abeyance all Orders of this Court entered from the time defendant changed his plea until further order from this Court.