United States v. Marrero, No. 08-2075 (6th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseAlmost 15 weeks after entry of a guilty plea and five days before the sentencing date, defendant, charged with possessing with intent to distribute crack cocaine and marijuana (21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1)), moved for substitute counsel. The motion was denied and, after extensive questioning, the court allowed defendant to proceed pro se. After trial, defendant was sentenced to 360 months in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The district court acted within its discretion and did not violate the Sixth Amendment by refusing to appoint a new attorney; the court adequately inquired and determined that the source of the conflict between the defendant and counsel was defendant's misunderstanding of the law. There was probable cause for defendant's arrest and detention, based on statements by an informant and officers' observations, and the search occurred after a warrant issues. Defendant's post-arrest statements were given voluntarily after he waived his rights; admission of evidence concerning defendant's struggle with officers was proper. The court's failure to strictly comply with the time for reviewing the sentencing report was harmless error. The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, 124 Stat. 2372, does not apply.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.