FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT JULY 25, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]
I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N os . 05- 13978 05- 15703 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 03 -001 31 -C R -01-C C -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f
- A p p e lle e , v ersu s S C O T T H I N T Z , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 25, 2006) B efo re B L A C K , B A R K E T T , an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:We disc e rn no a bu seof dis c re tio n in

thedis tric t c ourt ’s de nial of Hi ntz’ s re late d p os t- 1 judgme nt m oti on seek ingdepo sition s and thesu bp oe na of mate ri a ls c onne c te d to themotion to recuse and f

or substitute counsel. Cf. Gre en v. Union F oundry Co., 281 F.3d 1229, 1233 (11th C ir. 2002) (reviewingdenial of post-judgment motion for abuse of discretion); United States v. Quinn, 123 F.3d 1415, 1425 ( 11th Ci r. 1 9 9 7 )(reviewingdenial of de fenda nt’s motion for discovery for abuse of discretion). And the district courtdid not abuse its discretion by denying a

n evidentiar

y hearing o n th es e m at t ers. Cf. United States v. Ma ssey , 89 F.3d 1433, 1443 ( 11th Cir. 1996) (re viewingdenial of e videntiary hearing f or abuseof discre tion). To the extent Hintz ar gues the dis trict c ourt

sh ou ld h avesta

ye d re late d p ro c e e din g s, inc ludingHi ntz’ s dir e c t a pp e a l be fo rethi s Court, he never moved, or otherwise reque sted, a stay in the district court. We dec line to consider his arguments as th ey areraised f or the fir st tim e on appe al and they do not fall within any

of the exceptions we haverec ognized to the rule that we w ill not consider issues not raised in thedistrict court fir st. See Acc ess Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331-32 (11th Cir. 2004). 2 S c o tt H in tz , p r o c e e d in g p r o s e , a p p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is
m o tio n to r e c u s e a m a g is tr a te ju d g e a n d a p p o in t s u b s titu te c o u n s e l. O n a p p e a l, 1 H in tz a r g u e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t v io l a te d h is c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts b y d e n y in g h is
m o tio n a s m o o t a f

te ra lle g e d ly d e la y in g its ru lin g o n th e m o tio n f o r a p p r o x im a te ly si x m on ths, w hi l e f

ai l i ng t o st ay re l at ed courtproceedi ng s, i ncl ud i ng hi s di re ct
a p p e a l i n th i s Co u r t . W e a f f i r m. W e r evi ew the deni al of a m ot i on t o rec u se fo r ab u se o f d iscr etio n. S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. B ai l ey , 17 5 F . 3d 96 6, 96 8 (11 th C i r. 19 99 ). W e l ik ew i se re vi ew the deni al o f a m ot i on for s ub st i tut e c ou nsel for a bu se of di sc re t i on . S ee U ni t ed S t at es v. B er ger, 37 5 F . 3d 12 23 , 12 26 (11t h C i r. 20 04 ). A ft er p l e a di ng gui l ty t o ba nk f r a ud, i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . § 1344, pur s ua nt t o a w r i t t e n pl e a a gr e e m e nt , H i nt z w a s s e nt e nc e d t o a 57- m onth t erm of i m pr i s onm e nt . A l though the n r e pr e s e nt e d by co u n sel , H i nt z f i l e d a pr o s e not i c e ofAnder s v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 2 3 a ppe a l a nd a pr o s e m ot i on f or ap p oi nt m e ntof

ne w c ouns e l . A f

t e ra he a r i ng, the di s tr i c tc our tgr a nt e d H i nt z ’ s m ot i on fo r appoi nt m e ntof ne w c ouns e l , a nd i n J une 2 0 0 4 , a m a g is tr a te ju d g e a p p o in te d L y n n F a n t a s H in tz ’s a tto r n e y . A b o u t s ix
m o n th s la te r , in D e c e m b e r2 0 0 4 , w h ile h is d ir e c t a p p e a l w a s p e n d in g in th is C o u r t, H i nt z f i l e d a pr o s e m ot i on t o r e c us e the m a gi s tr a t e j udg e and a m ot i on f or su b st i tu t e co u n sel . In su p p o rto f recu sal , H in tz s ta ted th ath e h ad p ri o r b u si n ess de a l i ngs w i th the m a gi s tr a t e j u dge a nd hi s f a m i l y . H i nt z i ndi c a t e d tha tthe
m agi stra t e j ud ge had t ol d H i nt z t o g iv e h i m (the m agi stra t e j ud ge) pers on al p r o p e r ty s o th a t th e c r im in a l in v e s tig a tio n w o u ld “g o e a s ie r .” I n s u p p o r t o f h is
m ot i on f orne w c ouns e l , H i nt z a s s e r t e d tha tF a ntha d r e f us e d t o c ons ul t w i t h hi m or a llo w h im to a s s is t in p r e p a r in g th e d i r e c t a p p e a l a n d h a d f ile d a m o tio n to
w ith d r a w a n d A n d e r s b r ie f a lle g in g th a t th e r e w e r e n o is s u e s o f a r g u a b le m e r it. 2 O n Jan u a r y 14, 2005, w e gr a nt e d F a nt ’ s m ot i on t o w i thdr a w , s t a t i ng “ [ o] ur i nde p e n d e n t r e v i e w o f th e e n t i r e r e c o r d r e v e a l s th a t c o u n s e l ’ s a s s e s s me n tof t he
r e l a t i v e m e r i to f

th e a p p e a l i s c o r r e c t . ” B a s e d o n o u ri n d e p e n d e n tr e v i e w, r e ve a l i ng n o i ss ue s of a r gua bl e m e r i t , w e gr a nt e d the m ot i on t o w i thdr a w a nd
a f f i r m e d H i nt z ’ s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e . T he r e a f t e r , i n M a r c h a nd A p ri l 2 0 0 5, H i nt z f i l e d a f f i da vi t s i n su p por tof

hi s m ot i on f

orr e c us a l a nd s ubs t i tut i on of4

c ouns e l . T he f

ol l ow i ng m onth, the d i s tr i c tc our ti s s ue d a n or de ri ndi c a t i ng tha tthe
m ot i on t o r e c us e w a s unt i m e l y s i nc e H i nt z ’ s c our t - a ppoi nt ed at t or ne y ha d a l r e a dy ful fi l l ed her re spon sibi l i ty. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtdeni ed the m ot i on as m oo t . H i nt z then m ov ed for r ec on si dera t i on and fi l ed thi s app ea l . T he di stri ct c our tde ni e d r e c ons i de r a t i on, i ndi c a t i ng tha tthe m ot i on t o recus e w a s m oot be c a us e ( 1) the onl y i s s ue referred t o the m a gi s tr a t e j udge w a s the a ppoi nt m e ntof
c ouns e l f

orH i nt z ’ s a ppe a l a nd t h ere w e r e no f ur the ri s s ue s pe ndi ng be f or e the
m agi stra t e j ud ge; and (2) t hi s C ou rthad affi rm ed H i nt z’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence a n d h a d a l l o we d F a n tt o wi th d r a w. O n app ea l , H i nt z a rgue s t hathi s m ot i on for r ec usal and sub st i tut e c ou nsel
w as no tm oo tbeca use i taf fe ct ed the p ro ce ed in g s i n h i s di re ctappeal . M ore s p e c if ic a lly , H in tz a s s e r ts th a t h e w a s “f o r c e d to u s e a ll e g e d l y c o n f lic te d c o u n s e l” and w as depri ved o f a ny coun se l af t erw e gra nt ed coun se l ’ s m o ti o n t o w i thd ra w a nd a f f i r m e d hi s c onvi c t i on a nd s e nt e nc e . W e a r e unpe r s ua de d. A l though a n i ndi ge ntcri m i na l de f e nda ntha s a r i ghtt o be r e pr e s e nt e d by
c o u n s e l, h e d o e s n o t h a v e a r ig h t to b e r e p r e s e n te d b y a p a r tic u la rla w y e r , o rto de ma n d a d i f

f e r e n t a p p o i n t e d l a w y e r , e x c e p t f o r g o o d c a u s e . Th o ma s v. W a i nw r i ght , 76 7 F . 2 d 7 38, 742 ( 11th C i r . 1985) . “ A f e de r a l c our ti s w i thout po w ert o d ec i de m oo tqu es t i on s or t o g i ve advi sory o p ini on s w hi ch ca nn otaf fe ctTh is a pp e a l im pli c ate s n on eof

thee xcepti on s to themoo tne ss doc trine . Se eB & B Che m. 3 Co., Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 806 F.2d 987, 990 ( 11th Cir. 1986) (discussingexceptions). 5 th e r i g h t s o f

th e l i t i g a n t s i n th e c a s e b e f o r e i t . ” S t . P i e r r e v . U n i t e d St a t e s , 3 1 9 U . S. 4 1 , 4 2 ( 1 9 4 3 ) . “G e n e r a lly , a n a c tio n is c o n s id e r e d m o o t w h e n it n o lo n g e rp r e s e n ts
a j us t i c i a bl e c ontr ove r s y be c a us e a ny de t e r m i na t i on o f t h e m a t t e rw i l l ha ve no prac t i ca l ef

fe cton the part i es . . . ” C on nel l v. B ow en, 79 7 F . 2d 92 7, 92 9 (11 th C i r. 19 86 ). 3 H er e, th e d istrict co u rt d id n o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n o r v io late H in tz’s const i tut i on al ri gh t s by denyi ng hi s m ot i on s a s m oo tbeca use thi s C o u rthad af fi rm ed hi s c on vi ct i on and sent ence atthe t i m e of th e di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on . In
a f f i r m i n g h i s c o n v i c t i o n a n d s e n t e n c e a n d g r a n t i n g c o u n s e l ’ s m o t i o n t o wi th d r a w, w e c onduc t e d a n i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c ord an d d i s c e r ne d no i s s ue s of
ar gu ab le m er i t . A cc ordi ng l y, H i nt z’ s r equestfor a new att orney - - the on l y m att er be f or e the m a gi s tr a t e j udge - - w a s m oota s the r e w e r e no vi a bl e i s s ue s f orour r e v i e w , i f r a i s e d b y Fa n t o r a n o th e r a t t o r n e y . Fi n a l l y , H i n t z h a s s h o w n no a bus e of di sc re t i o n o r v io lati o n o f hi s r i gh t s a s a re sul tof the shortt i m e thatl apse d b etw ee n th e f ilin g o f h is m o tio n s a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e c is io n s , p a r tic u la r ly s in c e H in tz c ont i nue d t o f

i l e a ddi t i on al p l ead i n gs i n s uppor tof the s e m ot i ons a nd f

orthe
c o u r t’s c o n s id e r a tio n p r io rto its d e c is io n . AF F I RME D.