UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George Paul SALEMO, Defendant-Appellant

Good Law
81 F.3d 1453
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 28, 199695-10028California5,971 words

Opinion

Opinion

Alarcqn, J.

This appeal presents a novel question: Does section 3006A of the Criminal Justice Act require a district court to compensate an attorney who serves solely as an advisor at the request of an indigent defendant who has asserted his or her right to self representation? We conclude that section 3006A does not authorize a district court to compensate an attorney whose service as a legal advisor is requested by the defendant.

Salerno’s appellate counsel also challenges the order granting the Government’s motion to set aside the plea, agreement, and the validity of the court’s sentencing decision. We consider each of these issues in this opinion. We have jurisdiction to review the judgment of conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and the validity of the sentencing decision under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a).

Salerno’s request that he be permitted to file a pro se supplemental brief in this matter was granted by this court. None of the issues raised in the supplemental brief meet the criteria for publication set forth in our Circuit Rule 36-2. We have addressed these separate contentions in an unpublished memorandum disposition filed on this date.

I

No issue has been raised by Salerno’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.