Rangel-Rodriguez

dissenting.

If Rangel-Rodriguez wished to appeal the magistrate judge’s denial of his motion to the district court, he should have done so before the morning of trial. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to reconsider the magistrate judge’s decision at that late date.

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Armando Rangel-Rodriguez appeals his conviction for smuggling illegal aliens for financial gain, transporting illegal aliens, and aiding and abetting the commission of these crimes. He argues that the district court erred by denying his motion for substitution of counsel. We agree. Accordingly, we reverse the conviction and remand for further proceedings. As the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we will not recount them here.

We review a district court’s denial of a motion for substitution of counsel for an abuse of discretion. See United States v. Adelzo-Gonzalez, 268 F.3d 772, 777 (9th Cir.2001). We apply three factors to determine whether a district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for substitution of counsel: (1) the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry; (2) the extent of *183 any conflict between the moving defendant and his attorney; and (3) the timeliness of the motion. Id.

The inquiry conducted by the district court was extremely limited. While it is not hard to understand why the motion received short shrift under the circumstances, the inquiry proved to be insufficient. “Before the district court can…