United States of America v. Carl D. Edwards

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).
DAT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CARL D. EDWARDS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-10314
D.C. No. 2:05-cr-00154-KJD
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Kent J. Dawson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Carl D. Edwards appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his
supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
we affirm.
FILED
MAR 08 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

DAT/Research 09-10314 2
Edwards contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his
motion for substitution of counsel because it failed to conduct an adequate inquiry
into the nature, extent, and reasons for Edwards’ conflict with appointed counsel.
The record reflects that the district court performed an adequate inquiry and
concluded that the conflict centered upon a difference of opinion as to legal
strategy. See United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 758, 763 (9th Cir. 2002); see also
United States v. Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d 935, 943-44 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --