Court Opinion

ID: 9908069
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 18:01:23.952029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:32:55.308805
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                            FILED
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
                                                                             DEC 7 2023
                                                                         MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                          U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   21-50295

              Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No.
                                                 8:19-cr-00182-CAS-1
 v.

MANVEL CARNEL RICHARDSON,                        MEMORANDUM*

              Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                   Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding

                    Argued and Submitted November 17, 2023
                              Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

      Manvel Carnel Richardson (Richardson) appeals his conviction for

possession of ammunition in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

      We review de novo a claim of deprivation of counsel in violation of the

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Sixth Amendment. See United States v. Moore, 159 F.3d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir.

1998).

       If no objection is made in the district court, we review the issue for plain

error. See United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1268 (9th Cir. 2009). “A plain

error is (1) an error (2) that is plain, (3) that affects substantial rights, and (4) that

seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

       1.     Although the district court could have addressed Richardson’s request

to seek pro bono counsel more artfully, Richardson was not deprived of his Sixth

Amendment right to counsel. See Clark v. Broomfield, 83 F.4th 1141, 1155 (9th

Cir. 2023) (explaining that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee a criminal

defendant the attorney of his choice). The district court declined to delay the

proceedings to allow Richardson to seek pro bono counsel, but the record does not

reflect that the district court prevented Richardson from continuing to seek pro

bono counsel to represent him. Nor did Richardson ever indicate that pro bono

counsel was willing to represent him, or present the district court with willing

counsel. These circumstances do not rise to the level of a Sixth Amendment

violation. See Miller v. Blacketter, 525 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that

                                              2
the defendant had “ample opportunity to arrange for an alternative to court-

appointed counsel”).

      2.     Richardson argues that the district court plainly erred when it

permitted statements by the prosecution addressing Richardson’s silence

concerning his possession of ammunition. We have held that “[t]alking is not

silence.” Leavitt v. Arave, 383 F.3d 809, 827 (9th Cir. 2004), as amended (per

curiam). In the event “a defendant chooses to speak, the prosecutor can, surely,

explore that speech and its implications.” Id. (citation omitted). The prosecutor

did not impermissibly comment on Richardson’s silence. Rather, the prosecution

discussed the absence of information in Richardson’s statement regarding his

possession of a firearm.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          3