### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T O c t obe r 28, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ 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 o. 05- 11507 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 4 - 0 0 0 6 4 - C R - F T M- 2 9 - DN F 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 F R A N C I S C O J A V I E R A L M A D A C R U Z , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( O c t ob e r 28, 2005) B efo re D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: F r a n c is c o J a v ie rA lm a d aC ru z ap p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n s f o rc o n s p ir a c y to2

pos s e s s w i th i nt e ntt o di s tr i but e m a r i j ua na , i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 846, a nd p o s s e s s io n w ith in te n t to d is tr ib u te m a r iju a n a , in v io la tio n o f 2 1 U .S .C . § 8 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 1 ) ( c ) . T h e c o n v ic tio n s w e r e b a s e d o n ag u ilty p le a . A ft erpl ea di ng gu i l ty, bu tbefore the se nt enci ng hear i ng , C ruz w rot e l ett er s t o the di s tr i c tc ourt , s t a t i ng tha thi s a tt orne y ha d pr e s s ur e d hi m i nt o a c c e pt i ng the g u ilty p le a , a n d h e w a n te d to w ith d r a w h is p le aa n d r e c e iv e n e w c o u n s e l. T h e s o le i s s ue on appe a l i s w he the rthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on by f ol l ow i ng a l oc a l c our trul e a nd s tr i ki ng C ruz ’ s l e tt e r s , w hi c h i tc ons true d t o be pr o s e m ot i ons t o w i thd raw hi s gui l ty pl ea , w i tho utho l di ng a hea ri ng or m aki ng further i nq ui ri es i nt o the al l egat i on s C ruz m ade. W e r e vi e w adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s r e f us a l t o hol d ahe a r i ng onl y f ora n abus e of di s c r e t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C oope r , 203 F . 3d 1279, 1285 ( 11th C i r . 2000) (r evi ew i ng deni al of hear i ng on i ss ue of st andi ng ). W e w i l l , l i k e o th er ci rcu i t s, al so r e v ie w o n ly f

o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s ap p lic a tio n o f lo c a l ru le s . S ee C i chon v. E xel on G ener at i on C o. , L . L . C . 40 1 F . 3d 80 3, 80 9-10 (7th C i r. 2 0 0 5 ) ; F o x v . A m e r ic a n A ir lin e s , I n c ., 3 8 9 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 4 ( D .C . C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . L oc a l rul e s “ a r e e f

f e c t i ve ‘ unl e s s m odi f

i e d orabr oga t e d by the j udi c i a l c ounc i l of the r e l e va ntc i r c ui t . ’ ” B r ow n v. C r a w f or d C ounty , G a . , 960 F . 2d 1002, 1009 n. 10 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) ( q u o tin g 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 0 7 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) ) .Whil e the district cour t did not specifically

rely on Rule 2.03 in striking the fir st of 1 Cruz’s two letters, as it did with the second one, w e ca n aff irm on any

ground that finds support in the rec ord. See United States v. Mejia, 82 F.3d 1032, 1035 ( 11th Cir. 1996). 3 I n thi s c a s e , the l oc a l rul e s tha tgove rn the appe a r a nc e of both c ouns e l a nd part i es before the di stri ctcourtspec i fythat , on ce an att orney has m ade ageneral appearance i n a ca se , coun se l cann otw i thd raw w i tho utperm i ss i on of the di stri ct c our t , a nd c ouns e l , notthe pa rty , i s the s ol e pe r s on w ho c a n f i l e m ot i ons a nd be h e a r d in th e c a s e . M .D . F la R ul es 2. 03( b) , ( d) . T h a t m e a n s c o u n s e le d d e f e n d a n ts 1 cann otfi l e thei r ow n m ot i on s. S ee M . D . F l a. R ul e 2. 03 (b). T he rul es ar e c l ear, a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in ap p ly in g th e m . B ecau se th e d i stri ctco u rtact ed w i th i n i t s d i scret i o n i n stri k i n g C ru z’ s p ro se m o tio n s , th e r e w a s n o p r o p e rm o tio n to w ith d r a w ag u ilty p le ab e f o r e it. T here fore , the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n fai l i ng t o con du ctan e vi de nt i a ry he a r i ng. T o th e e x te n t th a t C ru z is a r g u in g th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s h o u ld h a v e c o n s tru e d h is l e tt e r s a s amo t i o n t o r e p r e s e n th i ms e l f p u r s u a n tt o Fa r e tt av . Ca l i f o rn i a , 4 2 2 U . S. 8 0 6 , 9 5 S .C t. 2 5 2 5 ( 1 9 7 5 ) , th a t a r g u m e n t is s u b je c t to th e s a m e f

au lt: it s h o u ld h a v e b e e n m a d e th r o u g h c o u n s e l. E v e n if M .D . F la R ul es 2. 03( b) , ( d) s houl d not h av e b ee n ap p li ed to a F ar etta m o ti o n b ec au se o f its n atu re , th e d istrict co u rt’s f a i l ur e t o c onduc taF a r e tt ahe a r i ng i n thi s c a s e w a s s t i l l nota n abus e of di s c r e t i on4

be c aus e C ruz ne ve r“ c l e a r l ya nd une qui voc a l l y a s s e r t [ e d] the de s i r e t o r e pr e s e nt hi m se l f. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. T ea gu e, 93 5 F . 2d 15 25 , 15 40 (11th C i r. 19 92 ) ( i nt ernal m a rk s a n d c ita tio n o m itte d ) . AF F I RME D.