[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
No. 08-10769
THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 07-00040-CR-4-RH-WCS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CLAYTON SHUNDEL GEE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
_________________________
(September 10, 2008)
Before MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Clayton Gee appeals his conviction for the possession of firearms and
ammunition as a felon and in furtherance of a trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g), 924(a)(2), 924(c)(1)(A)(i), possession with intent to distribute a
controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(D), and knowingly
and intentionally distributing five grams or more of cocaine base, id. §§ 841(a)(1),
(b)(1)(B)(iii). Gee argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his
motion to discharge his appointed attorney, William Clark, Jr. We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gee’s motion for
new counsel. United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1343 (11th Cir. 1997).
The record reflects no irreconcilable conflict between Gee and Clark. Although
Gee had complained earlier that Clark had failed to prepare his case for trial and
had pressured him to accept a guilty plea, Gee expressed, at the hearing on his
motion for new counsel, concern only with Clark’s failure to pursue a baseless
motion to suppress. Clark represented Gee vigorously at trial and sentencing. In
the light of the record, any alleged lack of communication between Gee and Clark
was not so great that it prevented Gee from receiving an adequate defense. Gee
also fails to explain how he was prejudiced by being forced to proceed with Clark
as his lawyer. We affirm Gee’s conviction.
AFFIRMED.
2