His trial was scheduled to begin today after he entered a not guilty plea in July, but continued legal wrangling in Omar Ponton’s federal fentanyl distribution case this month has led him to plead guilty, moving his sentencing to November, court records show.

Ponton this month also requested a new attorney, which would have been his fifth, had U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones Jr. not denied the motion.

Ponton, of Roanoke Rapids, alleged that his attorney Scott Wilkinson failed to advocate aggressively enough during plea negotiations and had not shared certain findings to remove a specific stipulation from the proposed agreement. The government stated it would withdraw the plea offer if not accepted and would offer no further deals.

Jones found no total breakdown of communication or good cause between Ponton and Wilkinson under Fourth Circuit standards.

On August 18, Ponton proceeded with the change-of-plea hearing and entered a guilty plea. He pleaded guilty to charges of distribution of 40 grams or more of fentanyl, distribution of fentanyl, and possession of a firearm by a felon. Ponton is scheduled for sentencing in New Bern before District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on November 3.

This is not the first time Ponton has changed his mind about his fate.

On February 10, 2025 — the day he was scheduled to stand trial — Ponton entered a guilty plea before Judge Terrence W. Boyle to the count that charged him with the distribution of 40 grams or more of fentanyl.

The case was later transferred to Flanagan onAugust 19, 2025.

In May, however, Wilkinson moved to withdraw Ponton’s guilty plea based on two paths under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Wilkinson argued that the original plea was not knowing or voluntary due to a series of procedural errors committed by Boyle.

The motion argued that the district court failed to properly advise Ponton of his constitutional and procedural rights.

The defense argued that the combination of mistakes was too material to ignore and should legally serve as a "fair and just reason" to grant the withdrawal, vacate the plea, and reset the matter for a new arraignment and trial.