United States v. James Watson

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 01 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-30261
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 1:09-cr-00096-JDS-1
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JAMES W. WATSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Jack D. Shanstrom, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 30, 2011 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
James W. Watson appeals the judgment of conviction and his sentence for
felony possession of a firearm. Watson raises as error the district court’s denial of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
two motions to withdraw by his appointed counsel and argues the district court
committed procedural error during sentencing. We affirm.
Watson argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying
counsel’s motions to withdraw. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motions based on the expansive record before it, including the
transcript of an earlier hearing at which Watson withdrew his prior motion to
represent himself and letters from Watson to the court, his attorney’s supervisor,
and the prosecution detailing the difficulties in the attorney-client relationship.
The district court’s conclusion that the breakdown in the relationship did not
necessitate substitution of counsel was warranted on the record before it, even if
holding a hearing would have been preferable. See United States v. Smith, 282
F.3d 758, 764 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[U]nder certain circumstances, . . . the failure to
conduct a hearing is not by itself an abuse of discretion.”). Although troubled, the
attorney-client relationship did not suffer from complete breakdown. Cf. United
States v. Nguyen, 262 F.3d 998, 1004-05 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[A] complete lack of
communication constitutes sufficient conflict to warrant the substitution of new
counsel.”).
Watson also argues that the district court committed reversible procedural
error by inadequately considering the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) in
2
imposing Watson’s 46-month, high-end guidelines sentence. Although additional
development of the record explaining the sentence may have been useful, the
district court cited 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the guidelines, and the Sentencing
Commission’s policy statements. These references were sufficient in light of the
record as a whole. See United States v. Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108
(9th Cir. 2010) (“[A] sentencing judge does not abuse his discretion when he
listens to the defendant’s arguments and then simply [finds the] circumstances
insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the Guidelines range.” (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
3