United States of America v. JERRY ANTHONY GREGOIRE, Jr., AKA Jerry Gregoire, AKA Jerry Anthony Gregoire

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JERRY ANTHONY GREGOIRE, Jr., AKA
Jerry Gregoire, AKA Jerry Anthony
Gregoire,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-50435
D.C. No.
2:13-cr-00288-RGK-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2018**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, CLIFTON, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Jerry Anthony Gregoire, Jr., appeals the findings made
by the district court on remand. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
and we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
APR 17 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite
them here.
A prior panel of this court directed the district court on remand “to determine
the extent of the pre-trial conflict between Gregoire and counsel.” Specifically, the
panel instructed the district court to determine whether the conflict rose to the level
of “an irreconcilable conflict . . . that would have resulted in a constructive denial of
counsel or actual prejudice to Gregoire.”
We hold that the district court complied with these directives. First, the court
held evidentiary hearings on June 13, June 30, and August 30, 2016, at which it
heard testimony and admitted evidence. The court also accepted written argument
from both sides. This afforded the court a sufficient basis for reaching an informed
decision. See, e.g., United States v. Velazquez, 855 F.3d 1021, 1034-35 (9th Cir.
2017); United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 758, 763 (9th Cir. 2002).
Having conducted this inquiry, the court properly proceeded to the second
step mandated by the prior panel and our circuit’s precedents. The court evaluated
the testimony and evidence to determine “whether the conflict between [Gregoire]
and his attorney was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication
preventing an adequate defense.” United States v. Musa, 220 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th
Cir. 2000). Rejecting much of Gregoire’s characterization of the representation as
“not credible,” the district court determined that the “main dispute” between

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Gregoire and his counsel resulted from his counsel’s decision not to file a frivolous
motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction. Because this dispute did
not prevent Gregoire and his counsel from otherwise being “in frequent and
meaningful communication . . . during the course of the representation,” the court
determined that it did not rise to the magnitude of a conflict “that would have resulted
in a constructive denial of counsel or actual prejudice” to Gregoire. The court
reached this conclusion in compliance with this court’s directives and precedents.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --