United States v. Carlos Lobo

MEMORANDUM

Carlos U. Lobo (“Lobo”) appeals his jury conviction and 70-month sentence for reentering the United States without authorization after having been removed in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We affirm.

A. Lobo’s Second Motion to Substitute Court-Appointed Counsel

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lobo’s second motion for substitution of appointed counsel. We consider the three factors stated in United States v. Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d 935, 942 (9th Cir.2009).

Lobo submitted his second motion to substitute counsel on the eve of trial. “It is within the trial judge’s discretion to deny a motion to substitute made during or on the eve of trial if the substitution would require a continuance.” United States v. McClendon, 782 F.2d 785, 789 (9th Cir.1986). Given that granting Lobo’s request likely would have required a substantial continuance, it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny the motion.

Moreover, the district court’s inquiry into Lobo’s complaint was adequate. This was Lobo’s second motion to substitute appointed counsel, made substantively for the same reason he requested that his first appointed defender be removed. The…