Velazquez

MEMORANDUM *

Vincente Velazquez appeals his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm on all issues. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.

The district court acted well within its discretion when it granted counsels’ motion to withdraw due to a conflict of interest. 1 The district court’s inquiry was adequate to “provide!] a sufficient basis for reaching an informed decision” regarding the existence of a conflict arising from Velazquez’s potential presentation of perjured testimony. 2 The district court did not abuse its discretion by hearing communications that the attorney-client privilege may have protected because the court needed to hear them in order to resolve the motion to withdraw. 3 Moreover, the district court insured that the judge presiding over Velazquez’s criminal case did not hear any privileged communications.

Any error the district court committed by excluding Velazquez and one of his attorneys from the in camera hearing did not “seriously affect! ] the fairness, integrity or public reputation” of the trial as a whole.…