Source: https://openjurist.org/309/f3d/589/united-states-v-walters
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 16:49:44+00:00

Document:
Argued and Submitted September 10, 2002.
Darlene M. Ricker, Ricker & Mercado, Beverly Hills, CA, for the defendant-appellant.
Patrick K. O'Toole, United States Attorney (on brief), Carol C. Lam, United States Attorney (at time of argument and when opinion was filed), Deborah J. Rhodes, Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, San Diego, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.
Donald M. Re, Los Angeles, CA; Karen L. Landau, Peter Goldberger & Karen L. Landau, Ardmore, PA; David M. Porter, Sacramento, CA; and John T. Philipsborn, Law Offices of John T. Philipsborn, San Francisco, CA, for the amici curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California; Jeffrey T. Miller, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-99-01318-JTM.
Before THOMPSON and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,* Senior District Judge.
Ronnie Theodore Walters appeals the judgment and sentence after his conviction on two counts of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute at least 5 kg of cocaine and attempted possession of at least 5 kg of cocaine. 21 U.S.C. §§ 963, 960, 952, 846, 841(a)(1), 853 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm.
Walters' principal contention is that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice in refusing to grant his attorney pro hac vice status for his sentencing. Before reaching that issue, we consider Walters' other contentions on appeal. He contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress wiretap evidence, in refusing to depart downward for Walters' role in the offense, and in increasing his offense level by two levels for perjury, and that the asset forfeitures were unconstitutional and invalid. He advanced his contentions in conclusory fashion lacking evidentiary support and reasoned analysis. Having considered them, we find them to be without merit.
DENIAL OF APPLICATION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE.
An attorney is not eligible to practice pro hac vice in this district if the attorney "(1) resides in California, (2) is regularly employed in California, or (3) is regularly engaged in business, professional or other activities in California." Local Civil Rule 83.3(c)(5). Alan Ellis declares that he resides in California, maintains a law office in California, and regularly practices law in this state. Because Alan Ellis cannot satisfy the conditions for appearing pro hac vice in this district, his application is denied.
We normally review a denial of a motion to appear pro hac vice for abuse of discretion. United States v. Ries, 100 F.3d 1469, 1472 (9th Cir.1996); but see Munoz v. Hauk, 439 F.2d 1176, 1179 (9th Cir.1971) (holding that denial of pro hac vice status based on interpretation of local rule to preclude such status is not an "exercise of discretion in its ordinary sense"). Where, as here, the issue presented is one of law, review is de novo. See United States v. Carranza, 289 F.3d 634, 643 (9th Cir.2002).
Unless authorized by the Constitution or acts of Congress, an attorney is not eligible [to appear pro hac vice if he] ... (1) resides in California, (2) is regularly employed in California, or (3) is regularly engaged in business, professional, or other activities in California.
Civ. L.R. 83.3(c)(5), Pro Hac Vice, (S.D.Cal.2000).1 Walters contends that the rule as applied to him as a criminal defendant violates the Sixth Amendment by denying him the right to be represented at sentencing by his privately retained attorney of choice. That right, he argues, includes the right to have his attorney admitted pro hac vice, if necessary, unless some countervailing consideration outweighs the defendant's constitutional interest.
The mere fact that a defendant seeks to retain an out-of-state attorney does not hinder the efficacious administration of justice. His choice of counsel must be respected unless it would unreasonably delay proceedings or burden the court with counsel who was incompetent or unwilling to abide by court rules and ethical guidelines.
Here, the district court applied the local rule mechanistically, without discussion of whether the interest of the "fair, efficient and orderly administration of justice" required denial of the application. The sole ground cited by the district court for denying Ellis's pro hac vice application was the local rule. The court did not find that permitting Mr. Ellis to appear would hinder or delay the proceedings. Nor did the court interpret the rule as denying him the discretion to consider whether legitimate reasons existed for denial of the application. We think that such discretion is implicit in the introductory phrase, "Unless authorized by the Constitution or acts of Congress." We conclude that the rule as applied by the district court denied Walters' Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choice.
[W]e have found an error to be "structural" and thus subject to automatic reversal only in a "very limited class of cases." Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997) (citing Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963) (complete denial of counsel); Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927) (biased trial judge); Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986) (racial discrimination in selection of grand jury); McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 104 S.Ct. 944, 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984) (denial of self-representation at trial); Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39, 104 S.Ct. 2210, 81 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984) (denial of public trial); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993) (defective reasonable doubt instruction)).
527 U.S. at 8, 119 S.Ct. 1827.
Here, the district court's constitutional error did not amount to a "complete denial of counsel." Because it impacted only the sentencing phase, it did not affect the conduct of the trial "from beginning to end." Campbell v. Rice, 302 F.3d 892, 899-900 (9th Cir.2002) (citation omitted). Walters' pro hac vice attorney was excluded from participating only in the sentencing phase, not the guilt phase. This exclusion did not affect the "framework within which the trial proceed[ed]." See also United States v. Santos, 201 F.3d 953, 960 (7th Cir.2000) (suggesting structural error limited to cases of complete denial of counsel of choice).
Moreover, Walters' situation does not "defy analysis by `harmless error' standards." Fulminante, supra. The test for determining whether a constitutional error is harmless is "whether it appears `beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained.'" Neder, 527 U.S. at 15, 119 S.Ct. 1827, quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). Applying the harmless error analysis to the facts of this case, it is evident that Walters was well-represented at sentencing. Walters' attorneys successfully argued for a sentence of 188 months when the PSR recommended 292-365 months and the Government recommended 360 months to life. The alleged sentencing errors raised on this appeal lack substance. Accordingly, we conclude that the erroneous denial of Walters' pro hac vice motion was harmless.
Civil Local Rule 1.1(c) provides that the "Civil Rules shall apply to all actions and proceedings, including criminal."

References: § 2
 § 1291
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.