FRCrimP, Sixth Amendment, Sentencing
No abuse of discretion in denial of attempt to withdraw guilty plea, as the potential sentence was explained, deft stated in colloquy that representation was adequate, and deft's ability to challenge sentencing amounts was preserved. Court's statement that ineffective assistance claims should be deferred to Habeas was inappropriately categorical, but not prejudicial.
Court's refusal to appoint substitute counsel was correct, as dissatisfaction stemmed from results, not from process.
Court did not threaten deft with reduction in acceptance of responsibility sentencing offset if he challenged the PSR--unchallenged aspects of PSR therefore stand.
United States v. Enrique Trevino
