United States v. Moore

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 2, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-30318
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HENRY MOORE, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
USDC No. 00-CR-25-ALL
--------------------
Before GARZA, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Henry Moore, Jr., appeals the district court’s revocation of
his supervised release. He argues the his constitutional rights
were denied when the court denied his request to represent
himself as well as his request for a continuance. The
constitutional protections required at a revocation hearing do
not include the right to self-representation. See Martinez v.
Court of Appeal, 528 U.S. 152, 161 (2000); Gagnon v. Scarpelli,
411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-30318
-2-
(1972). Moore had the benefit of counsel at the revocation
hearing and the court allowed Moore to argue on his own behalf.
Moore’s argument that he did not receive timely notice of the
charges against him is undercut by counsel’s timely receipt of
the rule to revoke. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. 480. Moore received
a full and fair hearing. See id. The court did not err in
denying his request, on the day of the hearing, to represent
himself. See United States v. Joseph, 333 F.3d 587, 589 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 446 (2003). Nor did the court
abuse its discretion in denying him a continuance to facilitate
self-representation. United States v. Pollani, 146 F.3d 269, 272
(5th Cir. 1998).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --