United States of America v. Short et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS *NO. 96-232
MICHAEL SHORT *SECTION “L”
ORDER & REASONS
Before the Court is Defendant Michael Short’s motion for appointment of counsel, R. Doc.
976.Having considered Mr. Short’s motion and the applicable law, the Court now rules as follows.
I.BACKGROUND
On June 3, 1997, Defendant Michael Short was convicted of intentionally killing Derrick
Hubbard in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise, carrying a firearm in the commission
of a drug trafficking crime, conspiracy to distribute heroin and cocaine, engaging in a continuing
criminal enterprise to possess and distribute heroin, and other charges. R. Doc. 168. On April 29,
1998, Judge G. Thomas Porteous of this Court sentenced Mr. Short to concurrent sentences
including life imprisonment. R. Doc. 548.
On August 19, 1999, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed Mr. Short’s conviction except as to one count, but
concluded that Mr. Short’s sentence of life imprisonment would remain in place. R. Doc. 583.
Over the years, Mr. Short has filed numerous motions seeking reconsideration of his
conviction or reduction of his sentence. On June 26, 2023, Mr. Short filed a Motion to Modify
Term of Imprisonment under Amendment 591. R. Doc. 972.
II.PENDING MOTION
On July 21, 2023, Mr. Short filed the instant motion requesting the appointment of counsel
to litigate his motion for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). R. Doc. 976. Mr. Short
argues that he remains indigent and that he needs an attorney to properly litigate this matter. Id.
Case 2:96-cr-00232-EEF Document 978 Filed 07/26/23 Page 1 of 2

2

III. APPLICABLE LAW
The Sixth Amendment guarantees that “the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the
Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” U.S. CONST. amend. VI. Further, the federal statute
governing the appointment of counsel for indigent defendants provides that those who are entitled
to appointed counsel “shall be represented at every stage of the proceedings from [their] initial
appearance . . . through appeal, including ancillary matters appropriate to the proceedings.”
However, “there is no constitutional entitlement to appointed counsel in postconviction relief
proceedings.” United States v. Garcia, 689 F.3d 362, 364 (5th Cir. 2012) (citing Pennsylvania v.
Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987)). Moreover, a proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is not an
“ancillary matter” for which a defendant is entitled to appointed counsel. United States v.
Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010-11 (5th Cir. 1995).
IV. DISCUSSION
Mr. Short’s motion for appointment of counsel lacks a legal basis. As a defendant seeking
a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), Mr. Smith is not entitled to appointed counsel
under the Sixth Amendment or the “ancillary matters” statutory provision. See Garcia, 689 F.3d
at 364; Whitebird, 55 F.3d at 1010-11.
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for appointment of counsel, R. Doc. 947, is
DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 26th day of July, 2023.

________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:96-cr-00232-EEF Document 978 Filed 07/26/23 Page 2 of 2