United States v. Samuel Pego, 567 F. App'x 323

Pego appeals his convictions and 780-month sentence for assaulting his domestic partner on federal territory and witness tampering.
The crimes occurred July 12–14; Osawabine testified Pego repeatedly beat her with a metal poker, kicked, punched, and restrained her with a knife, causing serious facial injuries.
During pre-trial, Pego made intimidating calls and sent letters to Osawabine, intercepted by law enforcement.
A six-count superseding indictment charged unlawful imprisonment, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, two counts of witness tampering, and domestic assault by habitual offender.
The PSR grouped Counts One–Five, added enhancements, and yielded an adjusted offense level of 38; history category VI produced a guideline range of 360–1020 months; district court imposed the maximum on all counts sequentially with Count Six concurrent.
Pego challenges substitution of counsel, ineffective assistance, jury instruction, potential double counting, sentencing enhancements, and §3553(a) findings on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the denial of a substitution of counsel an abuse of discretion?	Pego contends trial counsel was ineffective and the court mishandled the request.	District court conducted inquiry, found no irreparable breakdown, and exercised professional judgment.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Are ineffective-assistance claims properly reviewed on direct appeal?	Pego asserts multiple trial-counsel failures prejudiced him.	Record is insufficient for clear prejudice; collateral review preferred.	Claims not resolved here; declined to resolve on direct appeal.
Did the district court’s jury instruction violate due process by bias?	Pego claims biased portrayal via instruction.	Instruction mirrored Sixth Circuit pattern and reflected testimony.	No merit; instruction proper.
Was there impermissible double counting or duplicative punishment?	Count Three (serious bodily injury) subsumed by Count Five (domestic assault).	Counts were distinct offenses; different elements required.	No plain error; not the same offense; not double counted.
Did the district court err by not providing §3553(a) findings or by procedurally improper sentencing?	Sentence was substantively unreasonable or lacked explicit §3553(a) consideration.	Court discussed criminal history and brutality, and the sentence fell within a proper, presumptively reasonable range.	Sentence presumptively reasonable within Guidelines; no reversible error.

United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (right to counsel of choice is subject to important restraints)
United States v. Benitez, 521 F.3d 625 (6th Cir. 2008) (timeliness and inquiry in choosing counsel; abuse-of-discretion review)
United States v. Mack, 258 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard for substitution of counsel)
United States v. Wells, 623 F.3d 332 (6th Cir. 2010) (ineffective-assistance review on direct appeal generally requires a clear record)
Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996) (double-punishment principle; requires showing of distinct offenses)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (presumptive reasonableness of within-Guidelines sentences)