Opinion ID: 4567517
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of the Motion to Appoint New Counsel

Text: Valdez argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion for new court-appointed counsel. This claim of error too is meritless. As the district court noted, five months earlier Valdez had expressed his satisfaction with his attorney.3 Furthermore, he waited without justification until the sentencing hearing to file his motion. See, e.g., Karmue, 841 F.3d at 31 (concluding that the fact the motion was made just two days before sentencing militated against granting it); United States v. Myers, 294 F.3d 203, 207 (1st Cir. 2002) (same for a motion filed five days before sentencing without any explanation for failure to file sooner). The district court did inquire and hear from both Valdez and his attorney as to the existence and nature of the alleged conflict between them. The court appropriately considered the 3 The motion at the sentencing hearing was not merely a continuation of the defendant's first motion to substitute counsel filed in January 2018. The appeal of the denial of that motion was voluntarily dismissed after Valdez entered the plea agreement with the assistance of counsel. This is not a situation where the defendant consistently objected to the effectiveness of counsel over a significant period of time. Cf. United States v. Kar, 851 F.3d 59, 65 (1st Cir. 2017). - 11 - defendant's previous frivolous attempt to obtain new counsel, defense counsel's own statement that he did not believe there was a conflict, defense counsel's reputation, and its own observations of defense counsel's adequate representation of Valdez. See, e.g., United States v. Kar, 851 F.3d 59, 65-66 (1st Cir. 2017); Karmue, 841 F.3d at 31; United States v. Hicks, 531 F.3d 49, 51-52, 54-55 (1st Cir. 2008). Nothing in the record shows an actual conflict or total lack of communication between Valdez and his attorney which prevent[ed] an adequate defense. Kar, 851 F.3d at 66 (quoting United States v. Allen, 789 F.2d 90, 92 (1st Cir. 1986)). Defense counsel had discussed the plea agreement and its consequences with Valdez numerous times, which Valdez acknowledged at the changeof-plea hearing. The district court did not err in denying both motions. Affirmed. - 12 -