Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Lee GHOLSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-03-02
Citations: 5 F. App'x 176
Docket Number: No. 99-4832
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Lee GHOLSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 5
Pages: 176–176

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Lee GHOLSON, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 99-4832.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2001.
Decided March 2, 2001.
David L. Heilberg, Law Offices of David L. Heilberg, Amy J. Collins, Pro-Bono Criminal Assistance Project, Charlottesville, VA, for appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Bruce A. Pa-gel, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, VA, for appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, Willie Lee Gholson, Jr., was convicted on one count of conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999), and two counts of distribution of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West 1999). The court sentenced him to sixty months in prison. Gholson appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for substitution of counsel. We find no merit in his claim. Consequently, we affirm.
In determining whether the district court erred in denying a motion to substitute counsel, we consider three factors: " '[tjimeliness of the motion; adequacy of the court's inquiry into the defendant's complaint; and whether the attorney/client conflict was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense.' " United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 288 (4th Cir.1998) (quoting United States v. Mullen, 32 F.3d 891, 895 (4th Cir.1994)). Applying these factors to the facts of this case, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gholson's motion. Id.
We therefore affirm Gholson's convictions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.