United States v. Steven McCracken

MEMORANDUM

Steven Allen McCracken appeals his conviction for conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine and possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. McCracken argues that the district court erred in denying his attorney’s motion to withdraw. He contends that the district court denied him his choice of counsel and right to self-representation by refusing to allow him to either retain substitute counsel or represent himself. McCracken further asserts that the district court erred in admitting evidence of his past drug dealing and that it impermissibly allowed the government to constructively amend the indictment in several respects. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. In reviewing a motion to substitute counsel, we consider three factors: “(1) the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry; (2) the extent of the conflict between the defendant and counsel; and (3) the timeliness of defendant’s motion.” United States v. Reyes-Bosque, 596 F.3d 1017, 1033 (9th Cir.2010). Here, although its tone may have been overly harsh at times, the district court allowed McCracken and his appointed counsel to speak at length. McCracken’s request for…