Taylor

MEMORANDUM *

David Oliney Taylor appeals his sentence of 235 months following his guilty plea to ten counts of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm Taylor’s conviction but remand in accordance with United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073, 1084 (9th Cir.2005) (en banc).

Taylor first challenges the denial of his two motions to substitute counsel. Taylor argues that the district court erred in failing to conduct an inquiry into his motions to substitute counsel. We review for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000). In exercising its discretion, we have emphasized that the district court *289 “must conduct an inquiry adequate to create a ‘sufficient basis for reaching an informed decision.’ ” Id. (citations omitted). The district court summarily denied Taylor’s first motion to substitute counsel, and inquired only briefly about the second motion at Taylor’s sentencing hearing. Although the district court should have made a more extensive examination into the alleged conflict, the district court did not abuse its discretion in view of its familiarity with Taylor’s…