### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11179 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

―

Appellee ,

v ersus RAUL CARRIZALES

- MENCHACA , Defendant

― Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 9

- 1

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Raul Carrizales

- Menchaca pleaded guilty of illegal reentry after

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances se t forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 19, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11179 Document: 00514080145 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2017No. 16

- 11179

2 deportation. The presentence report recommended an advisory guideline range of 6 to 12 months of imprisonment . The district court sentenced Carrizales

- Menchaca to 24 months

. During sentencing, the court imposed a $500 fine on defense counsel for violating Local Rule 57.8(b) , citing counsel’s conduct in refusing to answer the court’s questions adequately . Counsel twice moved to withdraw from rep re sentation after the sanction. On appeal, Carrizales

- Menchaca claims that the court reversibly erred by declining to inquire into counsel’s asserted conflict of interest before denying the motion s to withdraw. Carrizales

- Menchaca also contends that the sentence is proce dur ally unreasonable as a departure sen tenc e under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3. Carrizales

- Menchaca’s assertion that the district court neglected its duty to inquire about an asserted conflict of interest is reviewed de novo

. See United States v. Fields , 483 F.3d 313, 349 (5th Cir. 2007). “[T]he purpose of the duty to inquire is to assure that the court is apprised adequately of the nature of a conflict and its potential impact on counsel’s capacity to represent the defen

dant.” Id. at 352 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The duty to inqui re is not formalistic and may be fulfilled if “the parties have volunteered all the relevant information for a court to determine that no substantial conflict exists.” Id. In such instances, a trial court does “not have a duty to inquire any further.” I d. (quotation marks and citation omitted). The record was sufficient to apprise the district court of counsel’s sen

tenc ing arguments, and there is no evidence supporting a claim that counsel was laboring under an actual conflict of interest. See id

. ; U nited States v. Young , 482 F.2d 993, 995

− 96 (5th Cir. 1973) . Consid ering the court’s familiar

ity with the facts, legal issues, and counsel’s arguments about the purported conflict, the court had sufficient relevant information to determine that no such conflict existed. See Fields , 483 F.3d at 352. To that end, Carrizales

- Menchaca Case: 16-11179 Document: 00514080145 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2017No. 16

- 11179

3 has not shown that the court would have “learned anything material from [greater] inquiry.” See id. Carrizales

- Menchaca’s contentions regarding the procedural reasonable

ne ss of the sentence are equally unavailing. Although h e refers to the sentence as an upward departure under § 4A1.3 , the record reflects that the court imposed a non

- guidelines sentence or variance based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) fact ors. Thus, Carrizales

- Menchaca’s argument s are inapposite

. He also con tends that the district court’s reliance on § 3553(a) does not obviate its error in misapplying § 4A1.3. Th at theory , however, is based on the same erroneous
prem ise previously identified

— that the court misapplied the departure guide

line under § 4A1.3. No such guideline application occurred , so Carrizales

Menchaca’s attempt to show error based on reliance on the § 3553(a) factors is without merit. Because Carrizales

- Menchaca’s challenge to th e sentence is dir ected solely to its procedural reasonableness, we do not address its substan

tive reasonable ness . AFFIRMED. Case: 16-11179 Document: 00514080145 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/19/2017