United States v. Pedro Aguilar-Quinones
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Pedro Ivan AGUILAR-QUINONES, A.K.A. Pedro Ivan Aguilar-Quinines, Defendant—Appellant
- Area
- other
- Panel
- James S. Hawkins (author), Fletcher, Barry G. Silverman
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 3 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 10-50398 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:09-cr-04333-BEN v. MEMORANDUM * PEDRO IVAN AGUILAR-QUINONES, a.k.a. PEDRO IVAN AGUILAR- QUININES Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 27, 2011 ** Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Pedro Ivan Aguilar-Quinones appeals his conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
* 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). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Aguilar-Quinones’s motion for appointment of new counsel. Contrary to Aguilar-Quinones’s contentions, the district court made an adequate inquiry into his complaint and the record does not reflect that the conflict between Aguilar-Quinones and his counsel lead to a complete breakdown in communication or prevented Aguilar-Quinones from presenting an adequate defense. See United States v. Franklin, 321 F.3d 1231, 1239 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. McClendon, 782 F.2d 785, 789 (9th Cir. 1986).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-50398