United States v. Ruben Barajas , 598 F. App'x 551 ( 2015 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10247
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00233-TLN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RUBEN GOVEA BARAJAS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Ruben Govea Barajas appeals from the district court’s judgment following
his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Govea Barajas challenges the district court’s order denying his motion for
appointment of new counsel claiming that the district court’s inquiry into the
attorney-client relationship was inadequate and that he had lost trust in his
appointed counsel. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Govea Barajas’s request for new counsel. See United States v. Mendez-Sanchez,
563 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir. 2009). Govea Barajas’s request for new counsel
midway through the sentencing hearing was untimely, and the record reflects that
the district court’s inquiry allowed it to make an informed decision, and that there
were no “striking signs” of an extensive or irreconcilable conflict between Govea
Barajas and appointed counsel. See id. at 942-44.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-10247