“The proper focus in evaluating claims of dissatisfaction with counsel is on the quality of advocacy.” United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456, 460 (8th Cir.) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1011, 124 S.Ct. 549, 157 L.Ed.2d 421 (2003). After careful review of the record, we agree with Magistrate Judge Larsen that Taylor failed to show that attorney Poindexter was unprepared,

” United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir.2003) (citation omitted). “

"Justifiable dissatisfaction" sufficient to warrant new counsel includes "a conflict of interest, an irreconcilable conflict, or a complete breakdown in communication between the attorney and the defendant." United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456, 460, (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1011 (2003). "The court must conduct an adequate inquiry into the nature and extent of an alleged breakdown in attorney-client communications."

To succeed on a motion for substitution of counsel, a defendant must show "justifiable dissatisfaction," such as "a conflict of interest, an irreconcilable conflict, or a complete breakdown in communication between the attorney and the defendant." United States v. Jones, 795 F.3d 791, 796 (8 Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456, 460 (8 Cir. 2003)). The Court must balance the need to ensure effective legal representation, the need to thwart dilatory tactics, and the reality that the defendant is unhappy with his counsel.

Defendants seeking new counsel "must show justifiable dissatisfaction with appointed counsel . . . ." United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456, 460 (8th Cir. 2003). "Justifiable dissatisfaction sufficient to warrant new counsel includes 'a conflict of interest, an irreconcilable conflict, or a complete breakdown in communication between the attorney and the defendant.'"

United States v. Reeves, 674 F.2d 739, 748 (8th Cir. 1982). Whether to grant a motion for new counsel is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2003). A defendant must show a justifiable dissatisfaction with counsel in order to be granted a substitute.

"The proceedings of a grand jury are afforded a strong presumption of regularity, and a defendant faces a heavy burden to overcome that presumption when seeking dismissal of an indictment." United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2003). "Dismissal due to errors in grand jury proceedings is appropriate only if the defendant shows actual prejudice."

United States v. Reeves, 674 F.2d 739, 748 (8th Cir. 1982). Whether to grant a motion for new counsel is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2003). A defendant must show a justifiable dissatisfaction with counsel in order to be granted a substitute.

United States v. Reeves, 674 F.2d 739, 748 (8th Cir. 1982). Whether to grant a motion for new counsel is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2003). A defendant must show a justifiable dissatisfaction with counsel in order to be granted a substitute.

United States v. Reeves, 674 F.2d 739, 748 (8th Cir. 1982). Whether to grant a motion for new counsel is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court. United States v. Exson, 328 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2003). A defendant must show a justifiable dissatisfaction with counsel in order to be granted a substitute.