UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4221
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROGER CHARLES MENNER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:08-cr-00322-HEH-1)
Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 20, 2010
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Craig W. Sampson, BARNES & DIEHL, P.C., Chesterfield, Virginia,
for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia; John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Alan Hechtkopf, Mark S. Determan, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Charles Menner appeals his conviction for
charges of filing a false tax return and impeding the
administration of the Internal Revenue Code. On appeal, Menner
argues that the district court denied him access to the counsel
of his choice, thereby violating his Sixth Amendment rights.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In pre-trial proceedings in the district court, Menner
requested that his chosen counsel, Oscar Stilley, be admitted
pro hac vice to the Eastern District of Virginia without
associating with local counsel as required by E.D. Va. Loc.
Crim. R. 57.4. The district court denied the request to waive
the association requirement, and denied Stilley’s application to
be admitted pro hac vice because it was not signed by local
counsel. On appeal, Menner argues that the district court
deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to choose his own
counsel by enforcing the association requirement of the local
rules.
The Sixth Amendment affords a criminal defendant the
right to retain counsel of his choosing. United States v.
Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 144 (2006). However, a defendant
may not insist on representation by a person who is not a member
of the bar. Id. at 151-52. Moreover, trial courts may
2
“establish criteria for admitting lawyers to argue before them.”
Id. at 151.
Rules requiring foreign counsel to associate with
local counsel before they may be admitted to the bar of a court
have been consistently upheld. See In re Forfeiture Hearing as
to Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, 837 F.2d 637, 645
(4th Cir. 1989) (en banc) (citing Ford v. Israel, 701 F.2d 689,
692-93 (7th Cir. 1983)). The rule at issue here, E.D. Va. Loc.
Crim. R. 57.4, is a reasonable means by which the district court
may regulate the practioners who appear before it.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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