Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben Govea BARAJAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-18
Citations: 598 F. App'x 551
Docket Number: No. 14-10247
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben Govea BARAJAS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 598
Pages: 551–551

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben Govea BARAJAS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-10247.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 10, 2015.
Filed March 18, 2015.
Olusere Olowoyeye, USSAC-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Krista Hart, Law Offices of Krista Hart, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ruben Govea Barajas appeals from the district court's judgment following his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Govea Barajas challenges the district court's order denying his motion for appointment of new counsel claiming that the district court's inquiry into the attorney-client relationship was inadequate and that he had lost trust in his appointed counsel. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Govea Barajas's request for new counsel. See United States v. Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir.2009). Govea Barajas's request for new counsel midway through the sentencing hearing was untimely, and the record reflects that the district court's inquiry allowed it to make an informed decision, and that there were no "striking signs" of an extensive or irreconcilable conflict between Govea Barajas and appointed counsel. See id. at 942-44.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.