United States v. Ignacio Ramirez-Cossio , 583 F. App'x 616 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-10204
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:12-cr-01359-DCB-
LAB-1
v.
IGNACIO RAMIREZ-COSSIO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 9, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ramirez-Cossio’s
motion to substitute counsel. See United States v. Prime, 431 F.3d 1147, 1154 (9th
Cir. 2005).
*
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).
To make this determination, we must review a district court’s denial of a
substitution motion by examining “1) the timeliness of the motion; 2) the adequacy
of the district court’s inquiry into the defendant’s complaint; and 3) whether the
asserted conflict was so great as to result in a complete breakdown in
communication and a consequent inability to present a defense.” Id.
1. Ramirez-Cossio brought his first motion to substitute counsel two weeks
after obtaining a second continuance of his trial date. He made a subsequent
motion to substitute counsel eight days before the next trial date, and he also
requested new counsel or permission to represent himself one day before the next
trial date. In light of Ramirez-Cossio’s pattern of dilatory litigation, it was not an
abuse of discretion to conclude that the motions were untimely. Id. at 1155.
2. Upon receipt of Ramirez-Cossio’s first motion to substitute counsel, the
district court properly inquired into Ramirez-Cossio’s concerns; finding they
related to the plea negotiation process. After the second substitution motion, the
district court pinpointed Ramirez-Cossio was concerned with alleged threats made
by defense counsel; it then explored these allegations by hearing statements from
both Ramirez-Cossio and defense counsel. Ramirez-Cossio’s third motion to
substitute counsel did not allege any facts altering the court’s view of his
-2-
relationship with defense counsel, so no further inquiry was made. This record
reflects the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry. Id.
3. The district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that there was
not a breakdown in the relationship sufficient to constitute an inability to present a
defense. Id. at 1154-55. Unlike in United States v. Adelzo-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 772
(9th Cir. 2001), defense counsel never became antagonistic to Ramirez-Cossio,
never called Ramirez-Cossio a liar, always maintained that his and Ramirez-
Cossio’s relationship was cordial, and continually affirmed that he could ethically
represent Ramirez-Cossio. Although there were instances where Ramirez-Cossio
would not speak with defense counsel, each one was ameliorated through defense
counsel’s efforts afterwards. Indeed, when Ramirez-Cossio pleaded guilty, he
stated that he was satisfied with defense counsel’s representation.
AFFIRMED.
-3-