United States v. Gholson , 5 F. App'x 176 ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                                             Filed:   March 20, 2001
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 99-4832
    (CR-99-8)
    United States of America,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    Willie Lee Gholson, Jr.,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    O R D E R
    The court amends its opinion filed March 2, 2001, as follows:
    On page 2, second full paragraph of opinion, line 7 -- the
    year in the DeTemple citation is corrected to read “1998.”
    For the Court - By Direction
    /s/ Patricia S. Connor
    Clerk
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.                                                             No. 99-4832
    WILLIE LEE GHOLSON, JR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Virginia, at Charlottesville.
    Norman K. Moon, District Judge.
    (CR-99-8)
    Submitted: February 20, 2001
    Decided: March 2, 2001
    Before WIDENER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
    HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    David L. Heilberg, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID L. HEILBERG,
    Charlottesville, Virginia; Amy J. Collins, PRO-BONO CRIMINAL
    ASSISTANCE PROJECT, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.
    Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Bruce A. Pagel, Assis-
    tant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Following a jury trial, Willie Lee Gholson, Jr., was convicted on
    one count of conspiracy with intent to distribute cocaine base, in vio-
    lation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West 1999), and two counts of distribu-
    tion of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) (West
    1999). The court sentenced him to sixty months in prison. Gholson
    appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by deny-
    ing his motion for substitution of counsel. We find no merit in his
    claim. Consequently, we affirm.
    In determining whether the district court erred in denying a motion
    to substitute counsel, we consider three factors: "`[t]imeliness of the
    motion; adequacy of the court's inquiry into the defendant's com-
    plaint; and whether the attorney/client conflict was so great that it
    resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate
    defense.'" United States v. DeTemple, 
    162 F.3d 279
    , 288 (4th Cir.
    1998) (quoting United States v. Mullen, 
    32 F.3d 891
    , 895 (4th Cir.
    1994)). Applying these factors to the facts of this case, we find that
    the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gholson's
    motion. 
    Id. We therefore affirm
    Gholson's convictions. We dispense 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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 99-4832

Citation Numbers: 5 F. App'x 176

Judges: Hamilton, Per Curiam, Widener, Williams

Filed Date: 3/20/2001

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023