United States v. Alvin Hall

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-4190
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALVIN DEWAYNE HALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:13-cr-00125-HEH-1)
Submitted: November 21, 2014 Decided: December 17, 2014
Before MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy Gordon, Mansfield, Texas, for Appellant. Dana J. Boente,
United States Attorney, Olivia L. Norman, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin Dewayne Hall pled guilty to conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana
(Count 2) and bribery of a public official (Count 5), for his
role in supplying contraband while a federal inmate and was
sentenced to 96 months of imprisonment. On appeal, Hall raises
one issue: whether the district court abused its discretion by
denying, without proper inquiry, his request for a continuance
in order to obtain substitute counsel. For the reasons that
follow, we affirm.
At his sentencing hearing, Hall was represented by
appointed counsel but sought a continuance so that he could hire
another attorney to advise him regarding questions he had about
sentencing. Hall specifically told the court that he was not
seeking to withdraw his plea and made no statements regarding
unhappiness with his appointed counsel. The district court
denied the motion for a continuance finding that Hall’s
appointed counsel was very experienced, had done “superb job,”
there were no complicated issues involved in the sentencing
which would require additional research, no serious issues that
that were objected to, and that the advisory Sentencing
Guidelines were clearly and properly computed. (J.A. 54-55).
The determination of whether a continuance is
justified is left to the sound discretion of the trial court,
2
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1983), which we review for
an abuse of discretion. United States v. Lorick, 753 F.2d 1295,
1297 (4th Cir. 1985). We have held that a district court need
not grant a continuance for purposes of securing new counsel
where the request for it plausibly can be viewed as simply a
delaying tactic or as otherwise unreasonable. See, e.g., United
States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 107-09 (4th Cir. 1988);
Sampley v. Attorney Gen. N.C., 786 F.2d 610, 613–14 (4th Cir.
1986). In particular, a defendant’s right to choose his own
counsel is limited so as not to deprive a court of its “inherent
power to control the administration of justice.” Gallop, 838
F.2d at 108 (citation omitted); see United States v. Gonzalez–
Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 152 (2006) (finding that a trial court has
wide latitude in balancing the right to counsel of choice
against the needs of fairness and against demands of its
calendar). Thus, we find no abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we affirm Hall’s conviction and sentence.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3