United States v. Maley, 681 F. App'x 685

Matthew Maley was indicted on drug and firearms charges and initially represented by Abrams and Almanaza.
Trial was repeatedly continued at defendant's requests: initial date Feb 18 reset to Apr 14, then May 19, then July 14, and then Sept (multiple continuances over ~7 months).
Maley sought new counsel (Arizona attorney Mark Resnick); local counsel remained available and competent to try the case.
Five days before the September trial, Maley filed a fourth continuance seeking 90 days because Resnick had a conflicting jury trial; the government opposed the request.
The district court applied the Flanders factors (8-factor continuance balancing test), found multiple factors weighed against delay (last-minute filing, prior continuances, lack of good reason, local counsel ready, no shown prejudice), denied the continuance, and Maley was tried and convicted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of a last-minute continuance unlawfully deprived Maley of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice	Maley argued he had a right to choose Resnick and the court should grant a continuance so chosen counsel could appear	Government/court argued the denial was justified by the need for orderly administration, prior continuances, late timing, local counsel availability, and absence of prejudice	Denial affirmed: court did not abuse discretion after balancing Flanders factors; right to counsel of choice is not absolute

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (recognizes defendant’s right to counsel of choice and treats deprivation as structural error)
United States v. Flanders, 491 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2007) (sets multi-factor test for continuance requests balancing counsel-of-choice rights and court interests)
United States v. Trestyn, 646 F.3d 732 (10th Cir. 2011) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for continuance denials)
United States v. Holloway, 826 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2016) (reinforces reversal when court unreasonably interferes with counsel choice)
United States v. McKeighan, 685 F.3d 956 (10th Cir. 2012) (right to counsel of choice is not absolute)
United States v. Mendoza-Salgado, 964 F.2d 993 (10th Cir. 1992) (articulates interests to balance against counsel-of-choice claims)
United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619 (10th Cir. 1990) (discusses importance of defendant’s attorney selection)
United States v. Laura, 607 F.2d 52 (3d Cir. 1979) (attorneys not fungible; selection is critical decision)
United States v. Nichols, 841 F.2d 1485 (10th Cir. 1988) (similar discussion on counsel choice importance)