U.S. v. Dunbar, -- F.3d --, 2013 WL 2933116 (Kan.) (10th Cir. 6/17/13) - defendant pled under 11(c)(1)(C) and got the agreed 48-month sentence for distributing cocaine and 36 months for a supervised release violation. The COA rejects multiple claims and affirms. The district court properly rejected defendant's request for new counsel because the record indicates counsel performed satisfactorily and the district court made an adequate inquiry re: defendant's dissatisfaction with counsel's representation. The district court reasonably did not construe defendant's pro se pleading as a request to withdraw his plea; he was represented by counsel and had no right to submit pro se motions. Review of the voluntariness of Mr. Dunbar's plea and his supervised release sentence was only for plain error and that was not shown.

U.S. v. Dyke, -- F.3d --, 2013 WL 2934213 (Okla.) (10th Cir. 6/17/13) - without staking out a position with respect to the required showing to establish outrageous government conduct, the Tenth decides no dice on it under the facts here. "The crimes the government promoted are but cousins to ones the defendants were already busy committing--making meth rather than selling pills and marijuana, counterfeiting currency rather than forging checks. No doubt the new crimes represented a notch up in seriousness but neither were they exactly bolts from the blue." Nor was co-defendant Steele entrapped; there was ample evidence he was "predisposed" to manufacture meth and counterfeit currency. And his sentence was properly enhanced for a prior drug conviction, regardless of the fact it was a state conviction that had long since been expunged from his criminal record by state law. Finally, there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a voluntary intoxication instruction.