IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-20338

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN ROMERO-TREJO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-534-5

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Romero-Trejo was convicted of one count of conspiracy to commit

hostage taking and was given a within-guidelines sentence of 240 months in

prison and a five-year term of supervised release. In this appeal, Romero-Trejo

raises claims related to the district court’s denial of the requests for substitute

counsel and a continuance. These requests were raised in a pro se letter that he

gave to the district court at sentencing, but this letter is not in the appellate

record.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 17, 2012

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: 11-20338 Document: 00511858947 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/17/2012
No. 11-20338

To the extent that Romero-Trejo argues that his right to a complete

appellate record was infringed when the district court did not enter this letter

into the record, this claim fails for several reasons. First, the line of cases on

which he relies addresses missing portions of trial transcripts not letters never

offered into evidence. See United States v. Margetis, 975 F.2d 1175, 1176 (5th

Cir. 1992); United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303, 1305 (5th Cir. 1977); see also

28 U.S.C. § 753. Second, the substance of the letter, and the requests made

therein, may be ascertained from the record. Consequently, the omission of the

letter does not deny Romero-Trejo “‘effective appellate review.’” See Margetis,

975 F.2d at 1177; United States v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1043-44 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Finally, the letter was something Romero-Trejo hadwithin his control; therefore,

he is at least partially to blame for the failure to introduce it into evidence and

the failure to move to supplement the appellate record to include a copy of it. 

This argument does not entitle Romero-Trejo to any relief. 

Also unavailing are Romero-Trejo’s challenge to the district court’s denial

of his request for substitute counsel and his contention that the district court

failed to make sufficient inquiries concerning his arguments that new counsel

was warranted. Our review of the record shows that the district court’s inquiry

into Romero-Trejo’s alleged problem with counsel presents no meritorious claim

because it was sufficient to ascertain the nature of the problem alleged and to

glean the relevant facts. See United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 313, 352 (5th Cir.

2007). Additionally, Romero-Trejo has not shown “a conflict of interest, a

complete breakdown in communication or an irreconcilable conflict which [led]

to an apparently unjust verdict.” United States v. Young, 482 F.2d 993, 995 (5th

Cir. 1973)). Consequently, he has not shown that the district court abused its

discretion by failing to appoint substitute counsel. See United States v. Simpson,

645 F.3d 300, 307 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 541 (2011). Finally, he has

not shown that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for

a continuance, which was tied to his request for a new attorney, because he has

2

Case: 11-20338 Document: 00511858947 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/17/2012
No. 11-20338

not shown that this denial prejudiced him. See United States v. Stalnaker, 571

F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Barnett, 197 F.3d 138, 144 (5th

Cir. 1999). The upward variance he feared never took place, and the district

court sentenced him to a within-guidelines sentence.

AFFIRMED. 

3

Case: 11-20338 Document: 00511858947 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/17/2012