NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 20a0577n.06

No. 19-3638

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

OSCAR COLLADO-RIVERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

OPINION

BEFORE: ROGERS, SUTTON, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This case reviews the district court’s decision 

following our previous remand of Defendant Oscar Collado-Rivera’s motion for substitution of 

counsel. Collado-Rivera appeals the denial on remand of his attorney’s second motion for 

substitution of counsel—the motion filed post-trial and pre-sentencing. We remanded the district 

court’s denial of the pre-sentencing motion with instructions to conduct the analysis required by 

United States v. Mack, 258 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2001). United States v. Collado-Rivera, 759 F. 

App’x 455, 466–67 (6th Cir. 2019). The district court conducted a hearing and again found that 

there was not good cause for substitution of counsel for the sentencing hearing. Because the 

district court correctly applied Mack and did not abuse its discretion in determining that ColladoRivera did not experience a complete breakdown in communication with his counsel, we 

AFFIRM. 
No. 19-3638, United States v. Collado-Rivera

-2-

I. BACKGROUND

The background of this dispute was set out in our previous decision. Over two months 

before Collado-Rivera’s trial, defense counsel filed a motion to withdraw, explaining that ColladoRivera had “asked that he withdraw and that new counsel be appointed under the Criminal Justice 

Act.” Id. at 458–59. The district court held a hearing and allowed Collado-Rivera to discuss his 

concerns about his attorney. Collado-Rivera “explained that: (1) he disagreed with his counsel’s 

strategic choices; (2) he had not received certain discovery; (3) he was frustrated by the 

continuances in the case; (4) he felt that his counsel disrespected [his girlfriend]; (5) his counsel 

was angry with him for seeking additional counsel; and (6) his counsel expressed frustration with 

him when explaining certain legal concepts.” Id. at 459. Defense counsel also addressed the court

about the issues raised. Ultimately, the district court directed Collado-Rivera to confer with his 

attorney after which the court would reconsider a change of counsel if necessary; instead, ColladoRivera “proceeded to trial without renewing his request for new counsel.” Id. The jury convicted 

him of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than five kilograms of cocaine. Id.

Prior to sentencing, defense counsel filed another motion to withdraw, again at the direction 

of Collado-Rivera. Id. The district court summarily denied the motion at the sentencing hearing. 

Id. When Collado-Rivera objected, the “district court summarily declined to consider that 

objection.” Id. 

On appeal, we applied the analysis laid out in Mack; determined that the district court’s

inquiry was adequate; concluded that there had not been “a complete breakdown in ColladoRivera’s relationship with his attorney”; and affirmed the district court’s denial of the pre-trial 

motion to substitute counsel. Id. at 464–65. We concluded, however, that the district court abused 

its discretion when it summarily denied the second, pre-sentencing motion to substitute counsel. 

Id. at 466. We held that Collado-Rivera’s motion was timely, but determined that the district 
No. 19-3638, United States v. Collado-Rivera

-3-

court’s analysis was inadequate and failed to inquire into whether there had been a complete 

breakdown in the attorney-client relationship prior to sentencing. Id. We also concluded that the 

balancing between these factors and the public’s interest in the timely administration of justice 

was neutral. Id. We remanded with instructions for the district court to hold a hearing to determine 

“whether, at the time of sentencing, there was good cause for substitution of counsel.” Id. at 467. 

If so, Collado-Rivera should be resentenced; if not, there would be no need for resentencing. Id. 

On remand, the district court conducted a hearing, and allowed Collado-Rivera ample time 

to discuss his concerns about his attorney. Collado-Rivera’s testimony revealed that most of the 

conflict with his attorney centered around the decision not to call several witnesses at trial and at 

sentencing that Collado-Rivera thought would be useful in disputing the Government’s obstruction 

and perjury enhancement, and the fact that his attorney did not want to file his objections to his 

pre-sentence investigation. The district court also allowed counsel time to respond to the 

complaints and to explain his strategic choices not to call witnesses which he had concluded were 

not helpful or would be harmful, and not to object to those matters in the pre-sentencing report that

he thought would have no effect on the sentence. 

Collado-Rivera explained that he had spoken to counsel via video conference before 

sentencing on May 24, 2017, and talked to him about calling witnesses at sentencing, both to 

dispute the Government’s perjury and obstruction enhancement and to raise other objections to the 

pre-sentence report. When counsel rebuffed Collado-Rivera’s request and told him to present his 

objections himself, Collado-Rivera told counsel to withdraw. Defense counsel then filed 

objections to the pre-sentencing investigation report—without Collado-Rivera’s additional 

objections—and a motion to withdraw. Counsel and client did not speak again until the morning 

of the sentencing on July 20, 2017. 
No. 19-3638, United States v. Collado-Rivera

-4-

At the close of the hearing, the district court affirmed its earlier decision to deny the motion. 

It then issued an opinion recounting the testimony at the hearing and setting out its reasoning. The 

court explained that Collado-Rivera was allowed to address all his concerns about counsel and that 

Defendant talked “at length about his substantive issues with defense counsel’s performance and 

issues that related to trial, even though those issues were not directly pertinent.” (R.455 at PageID 

2313–14) The district court concluded that Collado-Rivera and his counsel had strategic 

disagreements, but those disagreements did not amount to a complete breakdown in 

communication. The court explained that Collado-Rivera and his defense lawyer had 

communicated throughout sentencing, beginning with a video conference on May 24, 2017 to 

discuss the pre-sentencing report. The two also spoke on the morning of the sentencing on July 

20, 2017. Collado-Rivera had additional objections that the defense lawyer did not present to the 

court, but the court provided Collado-Rivera the opportunity to present them himself. Defense 

counsel indicated that he had not been told with any specificity about Collado-Rivera’s additional 

objections, but the district court concluded that this was because the two had already discussed the 

sentencing strategy. And the district court noted that Collado-Rivera and defense counsel 

continued to speak at the hearing. 

The district court found that “[t]here has never been a time where it appeared Defendant 

discontinued consulting with his attorney, even through the conclusion of the July 1, 2019 

hearing.” (Id. at PageID 2316) Applying the Mack factors to the record of the hearing on remand, 

the district court concluded that “there was not good cause for substituting counsel for purposes of 

sentencing.” (Id. at PageID 2317) This appeal followed. 
No. 19-3638, United States v. Collado-Rivera

-5-

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

We review a district court’s denial of an indigent defendant’s motion to substitute counsel 

for abuse of discretion. United States v. Mooneyham, 473 F.3d 280, 291 (6th Cir. 2007).

B. Discussion

The Sixth Amendment provides a criminal defendant with the right to counsel. U.S.CONST.

AMEND. VI. However, “[a]n indigent defendant has no right to have a particular attorney represent 

him and therefore must demonstrate ‘good cause’ to warrant substitution of counsel.” United States 

v. Iles, 906 F.2d 1122, 1130 (6th Cir. 1990). In reviewing whether a district court has abused its 

discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel, we consider: “(1) the timeliness of the motion, 

(2) the adequacy of the court’s inquiry into the matter, (3) the extent of the conflict between the 

attorney and client and whether it was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication 

preventing an adequate defense, and (4) the balancing of these factors with the public’s interest in 

the prompt and efficient administration of justice.” Mack, 258 F.3d at 556. In particular, the district 

court must “inquire into the source and nature of the conflict” that the defendant articulates. United 

States v. Powell, 847 F.3d 760, 778–79 (6th Cir. 2017).

This court has already determined, and the parties do not dispute, that the motion for 

substitution of counsel was timely. Collado-Rivera, 759 F. App’x at 466. Similarly, this court 

found, and there is no dispute, that the fourth factor of the Mack analysis was neutral. Id. We 

therefore review the second and third Mack factors: the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry 

into the motion, and the extent of the conflict between Collado-Rivera and his attorney. 

For a district court’s inquiry into the relationship between defendant and attorney to be 

considered adequate, “the district court simply must allow a defendant the opportunity to explain 

the attorney-client conflict as he perceives it.” United States v. Marrero, 651 F.3d 453, 465 (6th 
No. 19-3638, United States v. Collado-Rivera

-6-

Cir. 2011). We previously determined that a district court sufficiently inquired into the matter 

when it “engaged in multiple lengthy discussions with [the defendant and his lawyer] that span 

many transcript pages regarding their alleged conflicts.” United States v. Vasquez, 560 F.3d 461, 

467 (6th Cir. 2009). When the district court allows the defendant, defense counsel, and the 

prosecutor “the opportunity to address the complaint at issue” and allows “all of the interested 

parties to present their respective evidence and arguments,” the inquiry is adequate. United States 

v. Saldivar-Trujillo, 380 F.3d 274, 278 (6th Cir. 2004). 

The discussion between Collado-Rivera, his attorney, and the prosecutor spans 34 

transcript pages, and the district court allowed Collado-Rivera wide latitude to discuss the issues 

he was having with his attorney, whether they were directly related to sentencing or were 

background information concerning events leading up to trial. On multiple occasions, moreover, 

the court directed the attorney to respond to the complaints Collado-Rivera was making and 

counsel fully did so. The hearing record reveals that the district court’s inquiry into the nature of 

the attorney-client relationship was adequate. 

We turn next to the nature of the attorney-client relationship between Collado-Rivera and 

counsel. It is clear that “a defendant’s differences of opinions with his attorney do not create a 

complete breakdown of communication that compromises his defense.” Marrero, 651 F.3d at 466. 

A defendant’s “dissatisfaction with the responses he got from his lawyer, not with the lack of 

opportunity or his inability to talk to his lawyer or contact his lawyer” does not constitute a 

complete breakdown in communication. Saldivar-Trujillo, 380 F.3d at 278 (cleaned up). 

The hearing on remand demonstrated that Collado-Rivera had spoken to his attorney on 

May 24, 2017, about the potential for calling witnesses at the sentencing hearing. The two also

discussed the attorney’s memorandum in response to the pre-sentence report and additional 
No. 19-3638, United States v. Collado-Rivera

-7-

objections that Collado-Rivera wanted to file. The attorney refused to file the additional 

objections. The two next communicated on July 20, 2017, the date of the sentencing. ColladoRivera’s lawyer stated at the hearing on remand that he would file a notice of appeal if asked. The 

district court correctly concluded that though this evidenced a set of strategic disagreements, it did 

not constitute a complete breakdown of communication. 

Collado-Rivera asserts that he was prejudiced by the failure of the district court to allow 

him to substitute counsel for the sentencing hearing because he was unable to call witnesses that 

would refute facts established at trial. But as the district court noted in the hearing, ColladoRivera’s sentence was well below guidelines range. It is far from clear that pursuing his alternative 

strategy would have resulted in a lower sentence. In any event, prejudice to the defendant is not 

an element of the analysis for the review of a motion to substitute counsel under Mack, and the

argument on that point is better suited for review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

III. CONCLUSION

Because we find that the district court correctly applied Mack and did not abuse its 

discretion in determining that Collado-Rivera did not experience a complete breakdown in 

communication with his counsel, we AFFIRM.