Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl D. EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-08
Citations: 369 F. App'x 864
Docket Number: No. 09-10314
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl D. EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 864–865

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl D. EDWARDS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-10314.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 8, 2010.
Christina Brown, Assistant U.S., Robert Lawrence Ellman, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Carl D. Edwards appeals from the district court's judgment revoking his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Edwards contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for substitution of counsel because it failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the nature, extent, and reasons for Edwards' conflict with appointed counsel. The record reflects that the district court performed an adequate inquiry and concluded that the conflict centered upon a difference of opinion as to legal strategy. See United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 758, 763 (9th Cir.2002); see also United States v. Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d 935, 943-44 (9th Cir.2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.