Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anita AMBLER, a/k/a Anita Webb, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-02
Citations: 564 F. App'x 704
Docket Number: No. 13-4569
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anita AMBLER, a/k/a Anita Webb, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 564
Pages: 704–705

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anita AMBLER, a/k/a Anita Webb, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-4569.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 28, 2014.
Decided: April 2, 2014.
Stephen D. Herndon, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellant. William J. Ihlen-feld, II, United States Attorney, Randolph J. Bernard, John C. Parr, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Following a jury trial, Anita Ambler was convicted of twenty-five fraud related offenses and sentenced to 87 months' imprisonment. She appeals, challenging only the district court's denial of her pre-trial motion for substitution of counsel. We affirm.
Although the district court applied the wrong standard in ruling on the motion for substitution of counsel, compare United States v. Mullen, 32 F.3d 891 (4th Cir.1994) (explaining factors court of appeals applies to review decision of district court), with Martel v. Clair, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1276, 1284-87, 182 L.Ed.2d 135 (2012) (explaining standard used by district courts to decide motions for substitution), we have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm Ambler's conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.