US v. David Barren

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for leave to file [998861346-2]; denying Motion to file supplemental brief(s) [998846834-2] Originating case number: 8:08-cr-00053-PJM-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998893466].. [10-4577]

Appeal: 10-4577

Doc: 108

Filed: 07/12/2012

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4577

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DAVID BARREN,
Hutchins,

a/k/a

James

Willie

Jones,

a/k/a

Vincent

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:08-cr-00053-PJM-1)

Submitted:

June 29, 2012

Decided:

July 12, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Francis A. Pommett, III, LAW OFFICES OF NATHANSON & POMMETT,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.
Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States
Attorney,
Mushtaq
Gunja,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-4577

Doc: 108

Filed: 07/12/2012

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
David Barren appeals his convictions and life sentence
following a jury trial on a fifty-three-count second superseding
indictment charging him with drug, money laundering, and evasion
of financial reporting offenses.

On appeal, Barren contends

that the district court’s pretrial rulings deprived him of the
effective assistance of counsel.

Finding no error, we affirm.

Barren first argues that the district court deprived
him

of

the

effective

assistance

of

counsel

by

permitting

attorney with a conflict of interest to represent him.
ineffective

assistance

based

on

a

conflict

of

an

To prove

interest,

the

defendant must demonstrate that (1) counsel “operated under a
‘conflict of interest’ and (2) such conflict ‘adversely affected
his lawyer’s performance.’”

United States v. Nicholson, 611

F.3d 191, 205 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446
U.S. 335, 348 (1980)); see Mickens v. Taylor, 240 F.3d 348, 361
(4th Cir. 2001) (providing test for proving adverse effect). *
conclude

that

conclusively

because

appear

from

ineffective
the

record,

*

assistance
Barren’s

does

claim

is

We
not
not

Although Barren urges us to apply the per se conflict of
interest rule espoused by the Second Circuit in United States v.
Williams, 372 F.3d 96, 102-03 (2d Cir. 2004), we decline to do
so under the facts here presented.

2

Appeal: 10-4577

Doc: 108

Filed: 07/12/2012

cognizable on direct appeal.

Pg: 3 of 4

See United States v. Martinez, 136

F.3d 972, 979 (4th Cir. 1998) (providing standard).
Barren also asserts that the district court deprived
him of the effective assistance of counsel by denying his motion
for a continuance.
courts

on

arbitrary

matters

“[B]road discretion must be granted trial
of

insistence

justifiable

request

continuances;
upon

for

assistance of counsel.”

only

an

unreasoning

expeditiousness

in

the

delay

violates

the

face

right

and

of

to

a

the

Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12

(1983) (internal quotation marks omitted).

“The later that a

motion for a continuance is made, the more likely it is made for
dilatory tactics; hence, it is less likely that the district
court arbitrarily denied the continuance.”
LaRouche, 896 F.2d 815, 824 (4th Cir. 1990).

United States v.
Upon review, we

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion for a continuance.

See United States v.

Williams, 445 F.3d 724, 739 (4th Cir. 2006) (providing standard
of review).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment
and

deny

Barren’s

supplemental brief.
facts

and

legal

motions

for

leave

to

file

a

pro

se

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

3

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 10-4577

Doc: 108

materials

before

Filed: 07/12/2012

the

court

and

Pg: 4 of 4

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4