Watts
United States v. Watts
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
We review for abuse of discretion 1 Watts’s claim that the disqualification of his counsel violated his Sixth Amendment rights, 2 and find none. The district court correctly found “that there is the potential for conflict of interest.” 3 The district court’s stray remark about the “appearance” of a conflict of interest does not detract from its finding. We need not decide whether screening might be appropriate in some criminal case, 4 because the district court found that screening did not eliminate the potential conflict in this case. 5 That ruling was within the district court’s “broad latitude.” 6 Unlike In re County of Los Angeles, 7 not only is this is a criminal case, but the ethical “wall” was not erected until about a month after the conflict arose, the lawyer whose representation created the conflict was with the firm when he represented the conflicting client and, most important, there was a genuine potential for conflict between the firm’s obligations of confidentiality and zealous advocacy to its simultaneous clients.
We review Watts’s additional claim that his sentence violates U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(2) for clear error 8 and find none.