United States v. Christopher Close

MEMORANDUM

Christopher Close appeals his conviction in federal district court, following a jury trial, on eleven counts of health care fraud, obstruction, and money laundering. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

Two days before his trial was set to begin, Close filed his sixth motion to continue trial so that he could replace his court-appointed attorney, Brian Thie, with private counsel, Douglas Phelps. The district court held a hearing on Close’s motion to continue and accepted a sealed affidavit and a sealed supplemental declaration from Thie — documents which detailed Thie’s interactions with Close over the previous eight months. These sealed documents were not provided to Close, nor read aloud in court, but were read by the judge in chambers. After conviction and exhaustion of his direct appeals, Close filed a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 .

Close contends that Thie’s submission of sealed declarations to the district court, without providing copies to Close, violated Close’s right to conflict-free counsel because Thie put his own interests before those of Close. The Sixth Amendment right to counsel includes the right to…