Court Opinion

ID: 990811
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-03 23:27:29.208318+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:34.712161
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.                                                                    No. 96-4265

BYRON ANDREW GREEN,
Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.
(CR-95-412-A)

Submitted: November 7, 1996

Decided: November 21, 1996

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,
Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

William H. Thompson, Arlington, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F.
Fahey, United States Attorney, Barbara N. Bandfield, Special Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

A jury found Byron Green guilty on two counts of possession with
intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine base (crack),1 and
three counts of possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more
of cocaine base (crack).2 The district court sentenced Green to ninety-
seven months incarceration with five years supervised release. Green
appeals. Finding that his claim lacks merit, we affirm.

Green argues on appeal that his conviction should be reversed
because the district court did not have a factual foundation upon
which to base its decision not to appoint new counsel. A district
court's decision whether to grant a motion for substitution of counsel
will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. 3 This court consid-
ers three factors in deciding whether the trial court exceeded its dis-
cretion: "(1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) the adequacy of the
district court's inquiry into the defendant's complaint; and (3)
whether the attorney/client conflict was so great that it had resulted
in total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense."4

We find no abuse of discretion in this case. Green waited until
immediately before the start of his trial to inform the court that he
desired a new attorney. Although Green argues that the district court's
factual inquiry into the basis of his complaint was inadequate, when
given an opportunity to make a statement, Green simply said that he
was not getting the support he needed. Green expressed no concern
over his attorney's competence, diligence, or ability to effectively
represent him. In denying the motion, the judge explained that the
morning of trial was too late to request the opportunity to seek out
new counsel. We find that the district court's inquiry into Green's
complaint was adequate.
_________________________________________________________________
1 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B)(iii) (1994).
2 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii) (1994).
3 United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 108 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,
487 U.S. 1211 (1988).
4 United States v. Hanley, 974 F.2d 14, 17 (4th Cir. 1992).

                    2
Finally, the "lack of support" from counsel was not so severe that
it prevented counsel from presenting an adequate defense. Counsel
presented an entrapment defense which was consistent with Green's
version of events. The fact that the jury rejected Green's defense does
not suggest that counsel was ineffective. Thus, the court did not abuse
its discretion by denying the motion for appointment of substitute
counsel.

Accordingly, we affirm Green's convictions and sentence. We dis-
pense 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

                    3