United States v. Brenda Mendoza-Bojorquez, 694 F. App'x 579

Mendoza‑Bojorquez was convicted of conspiracy to distribute, possession with intent to distribute, conspiracy to import, and importation of methamphetamine; she appealed.
She moved for a new trial based on purportedly newly discovered information about a Government confidential source; the district court reviewed the Government’s source information in camera and denied the motion.
She moved to substitute counsel about ten days before trial, alleging a conflict/breakdown in communication; the district court held a hearing and denied the motion as untimely and unwarranted.
The district court found communication between Mendoza‑Bojorquez and counsel adequate and characterized her complaints as disagreement over tactics rather than a true breakdown.
The court declined to consider an ineffective‑assistance claim on direct review, noting the customary remedy is collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
New‑trial motion based on confidential source	Source identity/testimony is newly discovered and would likely lead to acquittal	Court had already reviewed source info in camera; info does not show probable acquittal	Denied — source info would not likely produce acquittal; no abuse of discretion
Motion to substitute counsel (conflict/breakdown)	Counsel‑client relationship had broken down; requested new counsel ~10 days before trial	Court: parties could communicate; complaints were tactical disagreements; request was untimely and unexplained	Denied — no true breakdown; untimely given longstanding concerns
Request for questioning outside attorney’s presence	(Raised at oral argument) Court should have questioned Mendoza‑Bojorquez outside counsel presence	District court questioned parties at a hearing; issue not raised below	Waived — not raised in briefs, argument at oral argument is waived
Ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal	Counsel’s performance merits consideration now	Government/precedent: such claims normally litigated via § 2255 collateral review	Declined — customary to address ineffective assistance in § 2255, not on direct review

United States v. King, 735 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 2013) (standard for newly discovered evidence/new‑trial relief)
United States v. Berry, 624 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2010) (probable acquittal standard for new‑trial motions)
United States v. Reyes‑Bosque, 596 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2010) (standards for substitution of counsel hearings)
United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830 (9th Cir. 2003) (distinguishing tactical disagreement from true breakdown)
United States v. Roston, 986 F.2d 1287 (9th Cir. 1993) (counsel‑client communication and substitution standards)
United States v. Velazquez, 855 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2017) (timeliness considerations for last‑minute substitution requests)
United States v. Hanoum, 33 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 1994) (customary remedy for ineffective assistance is § 2255 collateral attack)