United States v. Green

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 26, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-10120
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-
Appellee,
versus
LAQUISIA PATRICE GREEN,
Defendant-
Appellant.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:02-CR-132-ALL-A
-----------------------------------------------------------
Before SMITH, DEMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Laquisia Patrice Green appeals her judgment of conviction and sentence, following a guilty
plea, for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1344. Green argues
that the district court deprived her of counsel of her choice and also argues that the court should have
construed a particular pro se letter to the court as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
Green does not dispute that then-retained counsel’s motion to withdraw did not satisfy the
requirements of Local Criminal Rule 57.12. District courts may implement and enforce local rules.
E.g., United States v. Yeatts, 639 F.2d 1186, 1188 (5th Cir. 1981). Green has not demonstrated that
the district court’s order, changing counsel’s status from retained to court-appointed, infringed on
her constitutional rights. See United States v. Hughey, 147 F.3d 423, 429 (5th Cir. 1998). Green
is not entitled to the appointment of counsel of her choice. United States v. Breeland, 53 F.3d 100,
106 n.11 (5th Cir. 1995); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir. 1993)(28 U.S.C. § 2254case).
Green has not demonstrated plain error with respect to her argument that the district court
should have construed a pro se letter as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. See FED. R. CRIM. P.
52(b); United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc) (citing United States
v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-37 (1993)), abrogated in part, Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461(1997).
AFFIRMED.
-2-