UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-4286
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOHN KELSEY WATKINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,
District Judge. (CR-04-306)
Submitted: October 21, 2005 Decided: November 8, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, William C. Ingram,
First Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Robert Albert Jamison Lang, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
John Kelsey Watkins appeals his conviction and eighty-
four month sentence imposed following a plea of guilty to
possession of ammunition in commerce after a conviction of a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (2000). On
appeal, Watkins’ counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Watkins’ Anders brief asserts
that there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but questions
whether the district court abused its discretion when it denied his
motion to allow substitute counsel. Watkins was advised of his
right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but did not respond.
The Government adopted counsel’s Anders brief and elected not to
file a separate brief. We affirm.
Whether a motion for substitution of counsel should be
granted is within a trial court’s discretion, United States v.
Corporan-Cuevas, 35 F.3d 953, 956 (4th Cir. 1994), and 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). A defendant does not have an absolute
right to substitution of counsel. United States v. Mullen, 32 F.3d
891, 895 (4th Cir. 1994). In evaluating whether the trial court
abused its discretion in denying counsel’s motion to withdraw, this
court must consider: (1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) the
- 2 -
adequacy of the court’s inquiry; and (3) whether the
attorney/client conflict was so great that it had resulted in total
lack of communication preventing an adequate defense. Gallop, 838
F.2d at 108.
Watkins timely filed his motion for new counsel (more
than a month prior to the sentencing), although the district court
did not address that motion until the sentencing hearing. Thus,
the timeliness prong under Gallop may weigh in Watkins’ favor.
Nevertheless, the district court conducted an adequate inquiry into
Watkins’ reasons for wanting new counsel. Moreover, there was no
evidence that a breakdown of communication between Watkins and his
attorney prevented Watkins from receiving adequate representation.
We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying Watkins’ motion for new counsel.
As required by Anders, we have reviewed the entire record
and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore
affirm Watkins’ conviction and sentence. This court requires that
counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the
Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the
client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that
such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this
court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion
must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
- 3 -
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 4 -