Case ID: f-appx_198/html/0310-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mike Anthony BROWN, a/k/a Michael Anthony Brown, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 05-5197.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 31, 2006.
    Decided: Sept. 5, 2006.
    Claire J. Rauscher, Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy E. Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Mike Anthony Brown pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least fifty grams of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846 (2000). The district court sentenced Brown to 210 months’ imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and ordered payment of a $100 statutory assessment. Brown has appealed, challenging the district court’s denial of his motion for new counsel. We find no abuse of the district court’s discretion. See United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 108 (4th Cir.1988). The district court conducted an adequate inquiry into Brown’s complaint and properly determined that: (1) counsel was diligent in his efforts to represent Brown; (2) Brown’s motion for substitute counsel was not timely filed; (3) there was not a total lack of communication between Brown and his attorney; (4) Brown’s own behavior created the conflict that was present; and (5) Brown put forth no valid reason why new counsel should be appointed. Id.

Accordingly, we affirm Brown’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.