US v. Omar Baskerville

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00036-GBL-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999062703].. [12-4446]

Appeal: 12-4446

Doc: 53

Filed: 03/13/2013

Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-4446

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
OMAR SHAHEED BASKERVILLE, a/k/a O, a/k/a Omar Dunson, a/k/a
Omar Shahid Baskerville, a/k/a Jerrell Jones,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (1:12-cr-00036-GBL-1)

Submitted:

March 8, 2013

Decided:

March 13, 2013

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cordell A. Hull, PATTON BOGGS LLP, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant.
Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Scott I.
Fitzgerald,
Special
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-4446

Doc: 53

Filed: 03/13/2013

Pg: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Omar
plea

Shaheed

agreement

violation

of

21

to

Baskerville

one

U.S.C.

count

of

§ 841(a)(1)

pled

guilty

distributing
(2006);

and

pursuant

to

oxycodone,
one

count

a
in
of

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
crime,

in

violation

of

18

U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1)(A)

(2006).

Baskerville’s sole argument is that the district court erred
when

it

denied

his

request

for

new

counsel.

Finding

no

reversible error, we affirm.
We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to
substitute counsel for abuse of discretion.

United States v.

Horton, 693 F.3d 463, 466 (4th Cir. 2012).

While a criminal

defendant has a right to counsel of his own choosing, that right
is not absolute.

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 52-53 (1932);

Sampley v. Attorney Gen. of N.C., 786 F.2d 610, 612 (4th Cir.
1986).

In particular, a defendant’s right to choose his own

counsel is limited so as not to “deprive courts of the exercise
of

their

justice.”

inherent

power

to

control

the

administration

of

United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 108 (4th Cir.

1988); see United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 152
(2006) (“[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[.]”)

omitted).
2

(internal

citations

Appeal: 12-4446

Doc: 53

A
after

the

Filed: 03/13/2013

defendant’s
court’s

Pg: 3 of 4

right

initial

to

receive

appointment

is

substitute

counsel

similarly

limited.

Thus, a defendant must show good cause as to why he should
receive

substitute

counsel.

Gallop,

838

F.2d

at

108.

In

general, good cause exists when denying substitute counsel would
deny the defendant a constitutionally adequate defense.

United

States v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 435, 443 (4th Cir. 1997) (“A total
lack of communication is not required.
whether

the

extent

of

the

breakdown

Rather an examination of
prevents

the

ability

to

conduct an adequate defense is the necessary inquiry.”); United
States v. Mullen, 32 F.3d 891, 897 (4th Cir. 1994).
A

district

court

has

substitution of counsel is proper.

discretion

to

decide

whether

Gallop, 838 F.2d at 108.

In

making its decision, the district court must consider both the
defendant’s reason for seeking substitution and the government’s
interest in proceeding without a continuance.

Morris v. Slappy,

461 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1983); United States v. Reevey, 364 F.3d 151,
157 (4th Cir. 2004).

In reviewing the district court’s decision

on a motion for substitution, this court looks at three factors:
the “[t]imeliness of the motion; [the] adequacy of the court’s
inquiry

into

the

defendant’s

complaint;

and

whether

the

attorney/client conflict was so great that it had resulted in
total

lack

of

communication

Gallop, 838 F.2d at 108.

preventing

an

adequate

defense.”

With these principles in mind, we have
3

Appeal: 12-4446

Doc: 53

Filed: 03/13/2013

Pg: 4 of 4

reviewed the record and have considered the parties’ arguments
and discern no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

4