UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-4584
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM C. PETTIS, a/k/a Bobby,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief
District Judge. (CR-02-41)
Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: February 24, 2004
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Peter R. Roane, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Jean B. Hudson, Assistant United
States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William C. Pettis pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute more than fifty grams of
cocaine base (Count 1) and possession of a firearm in furtherance
of a drug trafficking crime (Count 8). He was sentenced to 262
months on the drug conviction and to sixty months consecutively on
the gun charge. On appeal, Pettis alleges that his guilty plea was
involuntary because the district court did not inform him that his
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000) conviction carried a mandatory minimum
sentence of five years. Thus, he argues, he would not have pled
guilty but for this error. He also alleges the district court
erred by denying his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and denying his
newly obtained counsel additional time to prepare. For the reasons
that follow, we affirm.
Relying on United States v. Goins, 51 F.3d 400 (4th Cir.
1995), Pettis alleges that he was not informed of the five-year
mandatory minimum for his § 924(c) conviction. To the extent the
district court failed to specifically inform Pettis of this fact at
his plea hearing, the record otherwise reveals that Pettis was
aware of the mandatory minimum sentence prior to pleading guilty.
Accordingly, this claim fails.
Next, we note that an indigent defendant has no right to
a particular attorney and can demand new counsel only for good
cause. United States v. Gallop, 838 F.2d 105, 108 (4th Cir. 1988).
- 2 -
A defendant does not have an absolute right to substitution of
counsel. United States v. Mullen, 32 F.3d 891, 895 (4th Cir. 1994).
We find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
denying Pettis’ motion to substitute his trial counsel prior to
sentencing. Gallop, 838 F.2d at 108. Likewise, we do not find the
court abused its discretion by implicitly denying Pettis’ motion for
a continuance. United States v. Lorick, 753 F.2d 1295, 1297 (4th
Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, we affirm Pettis’ convictions and sentences.
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
- 3 -