on the government’s witness list but was not on the amended list DeWilliams received the morning of June 10, the first day of trial. In regard to DeWilliams’ first point, we agree with the general proposition that a change in representation, whether due to newly assigned counsel or the decision to proceed pro se, may, under some circumstances, entitle a criminal defendant to a continuance in order to prepare adequately for trial. See United States v. Akers, 215 F.3d 1089, 1099 (10th Cir.2000) (suggesting that, when a trial court grants a defendant’s request for self-representation, “it arguably would be an abuse of discretion and a denial of due process to deny the defendant’s request for a continuance to prepare for trial”); United States v. King, 664 F.2d 1171, 1173 (10th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). To the extent the district court, by imputing
recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees the right to effective assistance of counsel holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel holding the sixth amendment right to effective assistance extends to a criminal defendants first appeal as of right recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that a newly assigned counsel may be entitled to a continuance based on the criminal defendants sixth amendment right to effective assistance of counsel