Bride

MEMORANDUM *

Following his guilty plea to a number of drug- and firearm-related offenses and his Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement sentence of nineteen years imprisonment, Titus Bride (“Bride”) challenges the denial of his motions to substitute counsel and to withdraw his guilty plea, his two firearm-related convictions, and several aspects of the district court’s sentencing procedure. Because there was no error in any of these respects, we affirm.

I. Motions to Substitute Counsel and Withdraw Guilty Plea

After an evidentiary hearing— wherein both Bride and his attorney explained the apparent conflict created by the attorney’s continued representation— the district court denied Bride’s motion to substitute counsel. We review such denials for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir.2000). Bride argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to conduct an adequate inquiry into his complaint. See id. We disagree. The evidentiary hearing transcript reveals that the hearing, while brief, provided the district court with a “sufficient basis for reaching an informed decision.” United States v. McClendon, 782 F.2d 785, 789 (9th…