Case ID: f-appx_89/html/0618-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos Francisco PEREZ-MORALES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 02-50486.
    D.C. No. CR-01-01274-ER.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
    
    Decided Feb. 23, 2004.
    Ronald L. Cheng, Carole C. Peterson, USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Richard D. Rome, Law Offices of Richard D. Rome, Van Nuys, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Francisco Perez-Morales appeals the district court’s judgment, following a guilty plea, convicting him of illegal reentry after deportation and conviction of an aggravated felony in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1826(a) and (b)(2), and sentencing him to 57 months incarceration. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742, and we affirm.

Perez contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his request for another attorney at his sentencing hearing. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion because the court’s inquiry was adequate and there was no showing of a conflict between Perez and his counsel that was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense. See United States v. McClendon, 782 F.2d 785, 789 (9th Cir.1986).

We decline to consider Perez’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct appeal. See United States v. Ross, 206 F.3d 896, 900 (9th Cir.2000).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.