United States v. Perez

── United States v. Perez ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 08, 2026 Category: General UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT APR 8 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-3861 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:22-cr-00597-RGK-1 Central District of California, v. Los Angeles JOSE MANUEL PEREZ, AKA Julio ORDER Rodriguez, Defendant - Appellant. Before: M. SMITH, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. The memorandum disposition filed on February 11, 2026, is amended, and replaced with the concurrently filed amended memorandum disposition. The panel has unanimously voted to therefore deny the petition for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc as moot. DENIED.  NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 8 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-3861 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:22-cr-00597-RGK-1 v. AMENDED MEMORANDUM* JOSE MANUEL PEREZ, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 9, 2025 Pasadena, California Before: M. SMITH, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Jose Manuel Perez challenges his conviction and sentence for three counts of being a felon in possession of firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. 1. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Perez’s second * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. request to replace his trial counsel.1 To determine whether a denial of a request for substitute counsel is an abuse of discretion, we consider “(1) the adequacy of the district court’s inquiry; (2) the extent of the conflict between the defendant and counsel; and (3) the timeliness of defendant’s motion.” United States v. Velazquez, 855 F.3d 1021, 1034 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting United States v. Reyes-Bosque, 596 F.3d 1017, 1033 (9th Cir. 2010)). Typically, “courts cannot properly resolve substitution motions without probing why a defendant wants a new lawyer.” Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. 648, 664 (2012). In this case, the district court did not make any inquiry into Perez’s second request for new counsel. Contrary to the government’s suggestion, a court cannot assume that a request for new counsel is unreasonable simply because it is not the first such request; there must be some inquiry into the relationship between the defendant and counsel. See Velazquez, 855 F.3d at 1035. The lack of inquiry is not dispositive where, as here, the defendant does not claim that “there was a serious breach of trust and a significant breakdown in 1 Perez asks us to construe his complaints on the first day of trial regarding his counsel’s representation as a request for new counsel. A preserved challenge to