Whether the district court erred in denying the defendant's request to substitute retained counsel

Questions Presented for Review 1. This Court has held that the right to the retained counsel of one’s choice is the “root meaning” of the Sixth Amendment guarantee. Here, the district court denied Rupak’s request to change retained counsel before sentencing because it “wasn’t inclined” to continue the hearing, which had been continued only once before. The Ninth Circuit then recharacterized the court’s ruling as the denial of a continuance. Should this court address the standard of review for the denial of a request to substitute counsel? 2. Rupak pleaded guilty to a crime he did not commit and for which there was no record evidence. The Ninth Circuit, however, did not undertake the required analysis set forth by this Court in United States v. Dominguez-Benitez, instead finding that any error was not plain. Should this Court grant the petition to remind the lower courts that they are obligated to conduct meaningful plain-error review when there is a Rule 11 defect? --prefix-