Close

United States v. Close

Good Law
202 F. App'x 950
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 20, 2006No. 05-30131California411 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Christopher Close appeals from the conviction and sentence imposed following his conviction for health care fraud, money laundering, obstruction of a federal audit, and obstruction of a criminal investigation of health care offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1347 , 1516, 1518, and 1956(a)(1)(A)®. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Close contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for a continuance so that he could retain new counsel. In light of the consideration the district court gave to the age and health of the witnesses, the timing of the request, and its own scheduling concerns, we conclude that the denial of the motion for a continuance did not violate Close’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. See Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12 , 103 S.Ct. 1610 , 75 L.Ed.2d 610 (1983).

Close contends for the first time in his supplemental brief that the district court abused its discretion by not permitting the substitution of counsel due to the conflict between Close and counsel. This issue was not raised in Close’s opening brief and falls outside the court’s order permitting supplemental briefing only on the impact…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.