United States v. Casey Rose, 684 F. App'x 403

Casey Rose convicted of: conspiracy to possess ≥500g methamphetamine with intent to distribute; possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute; and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, resulting in a life sentence.
Before trial Rose sought substitute counsel (replacing appointed counsel Scott Miller Anderson) and later invoked his right to proceed pro se.
Rose also moved pretrial for a continuance to conduct legal research but withdrew that request at the pretrial conference and asked the court to proceed as scheduled.
The district court denied Rose’s motion to replace counsel, accepted his unequivocal waiver of counsel, and allowed him to represent himself after a colloquy.
On appeal Rose raised for the first time challenges concerning denial of substitute counsel, the court permitting pro se representation, and denial of the continuance; the continuance claim was deemed abandoned or waived.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred by denying substitute counsel	Rose claimed counsel lied and sought new counsel	Court found no credible basis; disagreement with strategy insufficient	Denial proper; Rose failed to show grounds for substitution
Whether allowing Rose to proceed pro se violated Sixth Amendment	Rose argued he lacked legal knowledge so court should not permit self-representation	Rose clearly, unequivocally invoked Faretta right after colloquy; court must honor choice	Allowed pro se; invoking Faretta was valid and required allowance
Whether denial of continuance violated due process / right to present a defense	Rose argued he needed time for legal research pretrial	Rose withdrew the continuance request at pretrial and asked to proceed; claim inadequately briefed on appeal	Claim abandoned/waived; not considered on appeal

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (briefing requirements and abandonment of claims)
Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116 (5th Cir. 1986) (appellate briefing standards)
United States v. Arviso-Mata, 442 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 2006) (withdrawing continuance request can waive claim)
United States v. Hoskins, 910 F.2d 309 (5th Cir. 1990) (credibility determinations on counsel complaints are reviewed deferentially)
United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 2007) (disagreement with counsel strategy insufficient for substitution)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (1983) (strategic disagreements do not automatically require new counsel)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (defendant has a constitutional right to self-representation if invocation is clear and voluntary)
McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984) (limits and safeguards for standby counsel when defendant proceeds pro se)
United States v. Sanders, 843 F.3d 1050 (5th Cir. 2016) (reaffirming Faretta requirements)