Opinion
CASE NO. 1:94-CR-05006-(1)-LJO
07-26-2016
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FELIPE ARREVALO GARCIA, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR COUNSEL (ECF NO. 239)
Before the Court is Defendant Felipe Arrevalo Garcia pro se request for counsel, filed July 5, 2016 (ECF No. 239). Defendant raises issues related to Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016), and appears to ask the Court to appoint counsel to aid him in a potential § 2255 motion. The Court will not construe Defendant's request for counsel as a motion made pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255.
There exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See Nevius v. Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 460 (9th Cir.1996). Yet, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case "if the interests of justice so require." See Rule 8(c) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255. Where, as here, a defendant does not and cannot demonstrate that the residual clause of § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) was a factor in his sentence, having been convicted of offenses under criminal statutes that do not contain language even remotely similar to that contained in § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), neither Johnson nor Welch applies. Therefore, the Court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Felipe Arrevalo Garcia's request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 239) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 26 , 2016
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE