Wilkerson

MEMORANDUM **

Peter Linn Wilkerson appeals the district court’s denial of his requests for substitution of counsel and continuance of sentencing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we recite here only those facts necessary to explain our decision. With respect to the request for substitution of counsel, Wilkerson argues that the district.court did not conduct an adequate inquiry to support its decision. We disagree. At the September 21, 2001 hearing, the district court asked Wilkerson to describe the problems he was having with Robert Goldsmith, his court-appointed counsel. When Wilkerson indicated that he wanted to rely on the explanation contained in his letter requesting substitution of counsel, the district court reviewed the letter and concluded, “[T]he entire thrust of the letter is that Mr. Wilkerson is unhappy that Mr. Goldsmith did not obtain the results of a prior MRI and did not assist him in getting a new MRI.” The district court noted that Wilkerson had attached an exhibit to his letter, but declined to discuss it on the record since it contained privileged information. The district…