Opinion
09-20964-CR-SEITZ
12-18-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ALBERTO GRAJALES, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING ALBERTO GRAJALES' MOTION TO APPOINT CJA COUNSEL TO PREPARE MOTION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 3582(C)(2)
PATRICIA A. SEITZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Alberto Grajales' Motion to Appoint Counsel to Prepare a Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). [DE 490]. Defendant moves for appointed counsel to prepare a motion following the recent amendment in sentencing guidelines. The Government replied substantively to the Motion, arguing Defendant does not qualify for a reduction based on the amendment. [DE 491]. Because Defendant has not shown that this is an exceptional case which would justify appointment of counsel, his Motion to Appoint Counsel must be denied.
While this Order does not constitute a ruling on any motion the Defendant might file to reduce his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), should he decide to file one, he is encouraged to look at the arguments and issues raised in the Government's response [DE 490] that address his eligibility for relief.
The Eleventh Circuit has made it clear that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to the appointment of counsel for postconviction proceedings. Arthur v. Allen, 452 F.3d 1234, 1249 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 10, 12 (1989)). However, the Court has authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and 18 U.S.C. § 3006(A)(2)(B) to appoint counsel in postconviction proceedings.
Such an appointment requires a finding of exceptional circumstances. Wahl v. McIver, 773 F.2d 1169, 1174 (11th Cir. 1985) (citing Lopez v. Reyes, 692 F.2d 15, 17 (5th Cir. 1982)). Defendant previously filed motions to appoint counsel which were denied. DE 478; DE 479; DE 485; DE 486. The instant motion does not provide any new details or facts which show the exceptional circumstances justifying appointment of counsel, other than a financial affidavit showing Defendant's lack of funds. Indigent status is not enough for appointed counsel. See Dankert v. Wharton, 733 F.2d 1537, 1538 (11th Cir. 1984) (holding “the state need not appoint counsel for indigent defendants in post-conviction and collateral proceedings”). Thus, it is
ORDERED that Defendant Alberto Grajales' Motion to Appoint Counsel to Prepare a Motion for Reduction of Sentence Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) [DE 490] is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED.