United States of America v. Metz et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	CRIMINAL ACTION
VERSUS 	No. 92-469
MARLO HELMSTETTER 	SECTION I
ORDER & REASONS
Defendant Marlo Helmstetter (“Helmstetter”) has filed a motion1 for an
extension of time and for appointment of legal counsel to reply to the government’s
opposition 	to 	his 	motion2 	to 	reduce 	his 	sentence 	pursuant 	to 	18 	U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Helmstetter states that “[d]ue to the shortage of staff and constant
lock downs at USP-Beaumont,” he is “unable to go to the law library to properly
prepare a reply to the government’s opposition to [his] compassionate release
motion.”3 He asks the Court to appoint him counsel and grant his request for a 21-day
extension so that he may “properly reply” to the government’s opposition because he
is “unable to move forward alone under such circumstances.”4
For the following reasons, Helmstetter’s motion for appointment of counsel is
denied. However, the Court grants his request for additional time to reply to the
government’s opposition.
1 R. Doc. No. 1373.
2 R. Doc. No. 1369.
3 R. Doc. No. 1373, at 1.
4 See id.
Case 2:92-cr-00469-LMA Document 1374 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 3

2
I.
There 	is 	no 	constitutional 	right 	to 	appointed 	counsel 	in 	post-conviction
proceedings. Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551, 555 (1987) (“[T]he right to
appointed counsel extends to the first appeal of right, and no further.”). “In the
context 	of 	18 	U.S.C. § 	3582(c)(1)(A) 	motions, 	the 	Fifth 	Circuit 	has 	held that
defendants have no statutory or constitutional right to counsel.” United States v.
Allen, No. 12-138, 2024 WL 640017, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 15, 2024) (Vance, J.) (citing
United States v. Diaz, No. 22-40044, 2023 WL 1879404, at *3 (5th Cir. Feb. 10, 2023)).
“Although a defendant in a § 3582(c) motion does not have a statutory or
constitutional right to appointment of counsel, the Court may appoint counsel in the
interest of justice.” United States v. Mogan, No. 14-040, 2020 WL 2558216, at *4 n.29
(E.D. La. May 20, 2020) (Morgan, J.) (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, No. 10-17,
2015 WL 13664966, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2015) (citing United States v. Robinson,
542 F.3d 1045, 1051–52 (5th Cir. 2008))); see 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2) (allowing
appointment of counsel under certain circumstances when “the court determines that
the interests of justice so require”). The interests of justice do not require that counsel
be appointed when the motion does “not involve complicated or unresolved issues” or
where a defendant proves capable of representing himself pro se. See Allen, 2024 WL
640017, at *2 (quoting United States v. Moore, 400 F. App’x 851, 852 (5th Cir. 2010)
(per curiam)).
The interests of justice do not require that the Court appoint counsel for
Helmstetter. The motion at issue is not complex, see United States v. Drayton, No. 10-
Case 2:92-cr-00469-LMA Document 1374 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 3

3
20018, 2020 WL 2572402, at *1 (D. Kan. May 21, 2020) (“[A] claim for compassionate
release is not particularly complex factually or legally.”), and Helmstetter has proven
he is fully capable of representing himself on the matter pro se.5 See Allen, 2024 WL
640017, at *2 (finding that the defendant was capable of representing himself pro se
and 	denying 	the 	defendant’s 	request 	for 	appointed 	counsel 	even 	where 	the
defendant’s “motion involve[d] the application of a relatively new policy statement
issued by the Sentencing Commission” because the defendant’s “briefing adequately
identified relevant law and applied the law to the facts of his case”).
However, while the Court finds that Helmstetter’s circumstances do not justify
appointment of counsel, the Court will grant Helmstetter’s request for an additional
21 days to reply to the government’s opposition to his motion.
II.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Helmstetter’s motion for appointment of counsel is
DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Helmstetter shall file his reply to the
government’s opposition6 no later than Thursday, DECEMBER 11, 2025.
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 20, 2025.
_______________________________________
LANCE M. AFRICK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
5 See R. Doc. No. 1373 (providing cogent, well-articulated reasons why he is seeking
compassionate release and supporting those arguments with caselaw and relevant
documentation).
6 R. Doc. No. 1372.
Case 2:92-cr-00469-LMA Document 1374 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 3