Opinion
4:10-cr-00790
03-25-2024
United States of America v. Jose Manuel Zuniga
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
Yvonne Y. Ho United States Magistrate Judge.
On March 14, 2024, Defendant Jose Manuel Zuniga filed a motion requesting appointment of counsel to assist his pending request for a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 4A1.1. See Dkt. 583 (motion to reduce sentence); Dkt. 584 (motion to appoint counsel). Defendant, acting pro se, previously sought and obtained a reduction of his sentence based on a retroactive change to the relevant sentencing range. See Dkt. 552 (Nov. 4, 2015 motion); Dkt. 556 (Oct. 31, 2017 order reducing sentence from 292 to 255 months). In his current motion for reduction of sentence under Section 3582, Defendant invokes U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, which applies to offenders assessed zero criminal history points at sentencing. See Dkt. 583.
The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not extend to post-conviction proceedings. See Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (no right to court appointed counsel for post-conviction proceedings); United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1010-11 (5th Cir. 1995) (no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in § 3582 proceedings). The Court can appoint counsel if the interests of justice so require. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). But “[t]he interests of justice do not require that counsel be appointed where a ‘defendant's motion does not involve complicated or unresolved issues' or where a defendant proves capable of representing himself pro se.” United States v. Munoz, 2024 WL 1119416, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2024) (quoting United States v. Joseph, 2020 WL 3128845, at *2 (E.D. La. June 12, 2020)).
Defendant has not shown that the interests of justice require appointing counsel at this time. Whether Defendant qualifies for a reduction based on his criminal history points is a narrow and uncomplicated issue. Moreover, Defendant has proved capable of representing himself, as he sought and received a sentencing reduction in 2017, all without counsel. See Dkt. 556.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant Jose Manuel Zuniga's motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. 584) is DENIED.