IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50968

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARMANDO BENITEZ-CASAS, also known as Raul Valenzuela,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:10-CR-681-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Armando Benitez-Casas was convicted by a jury of one count of illegally

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 22, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-50968 Document: 00511578532 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/22/2011
No. 10-50968

reentering the United States after having been previously removed. He claims

the district court failed adequately to inquire about his request for new counsel,

depriving him of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, so the conviction should

be vacated. Benitez-Casas argues that the lack of communication with his attorney prevented him from presenting an adequate defense.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel at all critical stages

of the prosecution. The right to choose an attorney does not extend to defendants who have appointed counsel. See United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548

U.S. 140, 151 (2006). Moreover, “[t]he freedom to have counsel of one’s own

choosing may not be used for purposes of delay,” and “[l]ast minute requests are

disfavored.” United States v. Silva, 611 F.2d 78, 79 (5th Cir. 1980). We review

Sixth Amendment claims de novo, id., but where the Sixth Amendment has not

been violated, we review the refusal to appoint substitute counsel for abuse of

discretion, United States v. Simpson, No. 09-30075, 2011 WL 2473618, at *5 (5th

Cir. June 23, 2011).

“Substitute counsel should be appointed only for ‘good cause.’” Id. (citing

United States v. Young, 482 F.2d 993, 995 (5th Cir. 1973)). “In order to warrant

a substitution of counsel during trial, the defendant must show good cause, such

as a conflict of interest, a complete breakdown in communication or an irreconcilable conflict which leads to an apparently unjust verdict.” Id. “If a court

refuses to inquire into a seemingly substantial complaint about counsel when

[the court] has no reason to suspect the bona fides of the defendant, or if on discovering justifiable dissatisfaction a court refuses to replace the attorney, the

defendant may then properly claim denial of his Sixth Amendment right.” Id.

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

The record does not reflect that there was a conflict of interest, irreconcilable conflict, or complete breakdown of communication between Benitez-Casas

and his attorney. Even if the last colloquy between the court and Benitez-Casas

regarding dissatisfaction with the attorney fell short of the otherwise applicable

2

Case: 10-50968 Document: 00511578532 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/22/2011
No. 10-50968

requirement, Benitez-Casas’s complaints, when considered in the context of the

proceedings, were not “seemingly substantial” such that further inquiry was

required. See id.

AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 10-50968 Document: 00511578532 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/22/2011