T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on * * w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

-A pp el l ee , v. CHRI ST OPHER C LOSE , D e f

e n d a n t- A p p e llan t. N o. 09- 36032 D . C . N o. 2: 03 -c r- 00 69 -E JL -1 2 : 0 8 -cv -0 0 1 9 1 -E JL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

I daho E dw a r d J . L odge , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r1, 2011 * * S e a tt l e , W a s hi ngt on B efo re: H A W K IN S , B E A , an dM U R G U IA , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C hr i s t ophe rC l os e appe a l s hi s c onvi c t i on i n f e de r a l di s tr i c tc ourt , f

ol l ow i ng a j ury tri al , on el even coun t s of hea l th car e f raud , ob struct i on , and m on ey lau n d e r in g . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n p u r s u an t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e a f f irm . 

# FI LED SEP 15 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALST hi s c ourtr e vi e w s de novo adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de ni a l of ape t i t i on br ought 1 u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . U ni te d States v . Fr e dm an , 39 0 F . 3d 11 53 , 11 56 (9th C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) . 2 T w o d a y s b e f

o r e h is tr ia l w a s s e t to b e g in , C lo s e f ile dh is s ix th m o tio n to cont i nu e tri also thathe coul d repl ac e hi s c ou rt -app oi nt ed att orney, B ri an T hi e, w ith p riv ate c o u n se l, D o u g las P h elp s. T h e d istrict co u rt h elda h ea rin g o n C lo se ’s m ot i on t o con t i nu e and ac ce pt ed a s ea l ed af fi davi tand a se al ed supp l em ent al d ecl arat i o n fro m T h i e— d o cu m en t s w h i ch d et ai l edT h i e’ s i n t eract i o n s w i th C l o se o v e rth e p r e v io u s e ig h t m o n th s . T h e s e s e a le dd o c u m e n ts w e r e n o t p r o v id e dto C l ose, no r r ea d al ou d i n cou rt , bu tw er e r ea d b y the j ud ge i n cham bers . A ft er conv i ct i on and exh aust i on of hi s di re ctappeal s, C l ose f i l ed a pet i t i on for habeas r e l i e f unde r28 U . S . C . § 2255. 1 C l ose c on t ends thatT hi e’ s s ub m i ss i on of se al ed decl ar at i on s t o the di stri ct court , w i tho utprov i di ng copi es t o C l ose, vi ol at ed C l ose’ s r i gh tt o con fl i ct -f re e c o u n s e l b e c au s e T h ie p u t h is o w n in te r e s ts b e f o r e th o s e o f

C lo s e . T h e S ix th A m endm entri gh tt o cou nseli ncl ud es the ri gh tt o con fl i ct -f re e c ou nselatcr i t i ca l s ta g e s o f ac r im in a l p r o c e e d in g . W o o d v . G e o r g ia , 4 5 0 U .S . 2 6 1 , 2 7 1 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . T h is courthas neverhel d thata heari ng on a m ot i on t o con t i nu e tri ali s a“ cr i t i ca l st age” o f th e p r o c e e d in g , b u t C lo s e ’s a r g u m e n ts a r e u n a v a ilin g e v e n if w e a s s u m e th a t it3

is s u c h ac r itic a l s ta g e . H e r e , th e c lie n t an da tto rn e yh a dac o m m o n in te r e s t in s h o w in g ab r e a k d o w n in th e r e la tio n s h ip a n dg e ttin g ac o n tin u an c e g r an te d . C l os e a l s o c ont e nds tha the w a s de ni e d due pr oc e s s w he n the c ourtdi d not p r o v id e h im w ith c o p ie s o f th e s e a le ds ta te m e n ts . T h e F if th A m e n d m e n t g e n e r a lly gu ar ant ee s an i nd i vi du alre as on abl e not i ce and an o pp ortun i ty t o b e heard before h e c a n b e d e p r iv e do f

lib e rtyo rp r o p e rty . Se e M athe w s v . E ldr i dge , 424 U . S . 319, 33 3 (19 76 ). H ow ever , C l ose w as pres entatal l po rt i on s of the heari ng and w as g iv e n a n o p p o rtu n ityto r e s p o n dto o rr e b u t th e a c c u s a tio n s m a d e b yT h ie in h is t es t i m on y. T he cont entof the af fi davi tand o f the att orney’ s t es t i m on y w er e e f f e c tiv e lyid e n tic a l. N orm a l l y , i ti s the be tt e rpr a c t i c e t o s how a n a tt orne ya f f i da vi tt o the c l i e nt a s w e ll a s to th e ju d g e a n dto a llo w th e c lie n t to c r o s s - e x a m in e th e a tto rn e y . H ow e ve r , f

orthe r e a s ons s t a t e d above , w e c onc l ude tha tC l os e ’ s c l a i m s a r e w i thout m e r it. AF F I RME D.