U.S. v. Velazquez

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 136-month term of incarceration on mail fraud charge under circumstances, where defendant had refused to appear at sentencing hearing and where defendant’s retained counsel had attempted to withdraw on two occasions, with one occasion being during sentencing hearing. Dist. Ct. properly denied first motion to withdraw, where record showed that any breakdown in attorney-client relationship had been repaired. Moreover, although defendant’s sister reported during sentencing hearing that she had filed ARDC complaint against defendant’s counsel, Dist. Ct. was not required to grant any motion to withdraw based on said information, since Dist. Ct. could properly view said motion as attempt to further delay defendant’s sentencing, where defendant had previously refused to appear at several sentence-related hearings, and on one occasion had incurred injuries to himself by resisting marshals’ attempt to forcibly bring him from his cell to one such hearing. Also, record supported Dist. Ct.’s imposition of sentence during defendant’s absence, where defendant had previously indicated on several occasions that he would not consent to his participation in sentencing proceeding.