Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Michael Barrett, Petitioner v. United States

I

ADDENDUM

4

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10105

Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 6, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

V.

MICHAEL BARRETT, also known as "Motorcycle Mike",

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-132-20

Before WIENER, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Barrett pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess with intent to

distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture and substance containing

methamphetamine, and he was sentenced to 420 months of imprisonment and

four years of supervised release. On appeal, he challenges the district court's

denial of his appointed counsel's motion to withdraw and appoint substitute

cou-nse1-for--appe-a-l-a-nd-h-is-motionfor-a-conti-n-u-a-n-ceof-the-sen-te-nci-n-g-hearin-g.

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

*

APP. 1

.

No. 17-10105

Additionally, he contends that the 420-month sentence, which was within the

applicable guidelines range of imprisonment, is substantively unreasonable.

Barrett has failed to demonstrate a "complete breakdown in

communication" or "irreconcilable conflict" with counsel.

United States v.

Young, 482 F.2d 993, 995 (5th Cir. 1973). The district court did not abuse its

discretion in denying the motion to withdraw and to appoint substitute counsel

on appeal. See United States v. Simpson, 645 F.3d 300, 307 (5th Cir. 2011).

In addition, Barrett has failed to show that the district court abused its

discretion in denying his motion to continue his sentencing hearing.

See

United States v. Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 439 (5th Cir. 2009). He has not

alleged, much less demonstrated, that he suffered "specific and compelling or

serious prejudice" from the denial of the continuance. United States v. Barnett,

197 F.3d 138, 144 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted).

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence under an abuseof-discretion standard. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). Here,

the district court considered Barrett's arguments for a sentence below the

guidelines range but determined that a 420-month sentence was appropriate

in light of Barrett's criminal history and its belief that Barrett was a "danger

to the community." See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(C). Barrett's arguments

are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of reasonableness that attaches to

his within-guidelines sentence. See United States v. Rashad, 687 F.3d 637, 644

(5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Ruiz, 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Barrett's motion to

relieve counsel and to appoint new counsel is DENIED.

APP. 2

2

Additional material

from this filing is

i the

a vailablen

Clerk's Off ice.