Opinion
13-cr-60270-BLOOM
05-09-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WAYNE DURHAM, Defendant
Wayne Durham, pro se
Wayne Durham, pro se
ORDER ON MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon the Defendant's Motion to Appoint Counsel, ECF No. [75] (“Motion”). In the Motion, Defendant requests the appointment of counsel to help him “litigate [his] case and file for compassionate release.” See ECF No. [75] at 1. However, it is well settled that 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(c) does not provide a statutory right to counsel for a § 3582(c) motion, nor is there a constitutional right to counsel for this type of proceeding. United States v. Cain, 827 Fed.Appx. 915, 921 (11th Cir. 2020) (concluding that the right to counsel does not extend to proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1) (citing United States v. Webb, 565 F.3d 789, 794-95 (11th Cir. 2009))); Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (“[T]he right to appointed counsel extends to the first appeal as of right, and no further.”). As such, “the decision to appoint an attorney is left to the discretion of the district court.” Webb, 565 F.3d at 795. The Court may appoint counsel if the interests of justice so require. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2); Cain, 827 Fed.Appx. at 921-22. As presented by Defendant, there is no indication that the Constitution, statutory authority, or the interests of justice support the appointment of counsel.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion, ECF No. [75], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 9, 2022.