United States v. Steven Laubly

MEMORANDUM

Stephen Charles Laubly appeals the district court’s denial of his pre-trial motion to appoint new counsel and his 96-month sentence for one count of willful failure to file a tax return and three counts of tax evasion. We have jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a) and 18 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

1. We review a district court’s denial of a motion to substitute counsel for abuse of discretion. United States v. Reyes-Bosque, 596 F.3d 1017, 1038 (9th Cir.2010). A denial of a timely motion to appoint new counsel is proper if the district court conducts an adequate inquiry and determines there was not a “significant breakdown in communication that substantially interfered with the attorney-client relationship.” United States v. Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d 935, 943 (9th Cir.2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court’s inquiry was adequate because he questioned both Laubly and counsel at length about their relationship and had “a sufficient basis for reaching an informed decision.” United States v. McClendon, 782 F.2d 785, 789 (9th Cir.1986). Furthermore, the asserted conflict centered around the filing of certain pre-trial motions…