United States v. Green , 74 F. App'x 370 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                         United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    August 26, 2003
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-10120
    Summary Calendar
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-
    Appellee,
    versus
    LAQUISIA PATRICE GREEN,
    Defendant-
    Appellant.
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:02-CR-132-ALL-A
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Before SMITH, DEMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Laquisia Patrice Green appeals her judgment of conviction and sentence, following a guilty
    plea, for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 371
     and 1344. Green argues
    that the district court deprived her of counsel of her choice and also argues that the court should have
    construed a particular pro se letter to the court as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea.
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
    published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    Green does not dispute that then-retained counsel’s motion to withdraw did not satisfy the
    requirements of Local Criminal Rule 57.12. District courts may implement and enforce local rules.
    E.g., United States v. Yeatts, 
    639 F.2d 1186
    , 1188 (5th Cir. 1981). Green has not demonstrated that
    the district court’s order, changing counsel’s status from retained to court-appointed, infringed on
    her constitutional rights. See United States v. Hughey, 
    147 F.3d 423
    , 429 (5th Cir. 1998). Green
    is not entitled to the appointment of counsel of her choice. United States v. Breeland, 
    53 F.3d 100
    ,
    106 n.11 (5th Cir. 1995); Yohey v. Collins, 
    985 F.2d 222
    , 228 (5th Cir. 1993)(
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    case).
    Green has not demonstrated plain error with respect to her argument that the district court
    should have construed a pro se letter as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. See FED. R. CRIM. P.
    52(b); United States v. Calverley, 
    37 F.3d 160
    , 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States
    v. Olano, 
    507 U.S. 725
    , 730-37 (1993)), abrogated in part, Johnson v. United States, 
    520 U.S. 461
    (1997).
    AFFIRMED.
    -2-