United States v. Edward Velazquez, 772 F.3d 788

Velazquez was indicted for mail/wire fraud arising from an investment scheme that caused approximately $1.6M in investor losses; he was released on O.R. bond, later became a fugitive for ~6 months, and was arrested after resisting marshals.
After return to custody he pled guilty to one count of mail fraud and agreed to attempt cooperation; the government later reported his proffers were not fruitful.
Velazquez repeatedly refused to appear at multiple hearings and filed pro se pleadings claiming lack of jurisdiction under the Uniform Commercial Code; the district court issued a "drag order" to compel his presence, and marshals forcibly brought him to one hearing, during which he was injured.
Counsel James Marcus repeatedly sought to withdraw (citing communication breakdown and later an ethics complaint by Velazquez’s partner); the district court repeatedly continued and ultimately denied the motion at sentencing when Velazquez failed to appear.
The court found Velazquez voluntarily absent at sentencing, proceeded in absentia after warning him that sentencing would occur if he did not appear, adjusted the Guidelines upward for obstruction but granted acceptance-of-responsibility, and sentenced him to 136 months plus restitution and supervised release.

Issue	Velazquez's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred in denying counsel's motion to withdraw	Denial violated Sixth Amendment right to retained counsel of choice (structural error)	Court had discretion; motion was untimely, no named substitute counsel, and no showing of ineffective assistance	Denial not arbitrary or unreasonable under the circumstances; no reversible error
Whether court clearly erred in finding Velazquez voluntarily absent and sentencing in absentia	A defendant in custody can never be found voluntarily absent (citing Achbani)	Voluntary-absence determination is fact-specific; a custodial defendant can waive presence by choice	No clear error: facts show repeated refusals, prior warnings, and actual refusals on sentencing day; court permissibly found voluntary absence
Whether court procedurally erred by failing to consider Velazquez's cooperation under §3553(a)	Court failed to meaningfully weigh his proffers as mitigating	Court considered cooperation, viewed it as marginal, and emphasized post‑charge misconduct and victim harm	No procedural error: judge considered cooperation (granted acceptance adjustment) but found post‑charge conduct outweighed it; within‑Guidelines sentence affirmed

Gonzalez-Lopez v. United States, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (a defendant has constitutional right to counsel of choice and arbitrary denial is structural error)
Sellers v. United States, 645 F.3d 830 (7th Cir. 2011) (right to retained counsel is not absolute; courts balance choice against fairness and calendar; arbitrary denials reviewable)
Achbani v. United States, 507 F.3d 598 (7th Cir. 2007) (discusses Rule 43 voluntary‑absence standard and judges’ duty to explore doubts about voluntariness)
Larson v. Tansy, 911 F.2d 392 (10th Cir. 1990) (custody does not per se preclude a voluntary waiver of the right to be present)