U.S. v. Fox

In prosecution on two Hobbs Act robbery charges, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to continue trial for purposes of obtaining private counsel. Record showed that: (1) defendant indicated at pre-trial hearing that was conducted three weeks prior to start of trial that he wished to proceed to trial with appointed counsel; (2) on day of scheduled trial, defendant reversed himself and requested that trial be continued to allow his family to obtain private counsel on his behalf; (3) defendant’s uncle testified that although he spoke to private counsel about taking defendant’s case, he had yet to raise money to retain said counsel; and (4) private counsel told appointed counsel that he would not be making appearance in defendant’s case. As such, Dist. Ct. could properly deny defendant’s continuance request, where it was speculative both as to whether defendant’s family would raise sufficient funds to retain counsel and as to whether private counsel would take defendant’s case. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly treat defendant’s continuance motion as one made at eleventh hour. Defendant, though, was entitled to new sentencing hearing under Dean, 137 S.Ct. 1170, where Dist. Ct. improperly imposed 51-month sentence on Hobbs Act charges as if mandatory 384-month add-on to defendant’s total sentence of 435 month incarceration did not exist.