agree with the government that it would be unreasonable to ignore any relevant preparation that counsel might have conducted in the three months between the date of [defendant’s complaint about the ineffectiveness of his counsel] and the beginning of the trial.”). The trial court, therefore, may consider the motion to substitute counsel in light of the facts and circumstances both when the motion was originally made and also after it was denied. ¶ 17 We emphasize, however, that the issue at the hearing will not be whether Torres received effective assistance of counsel under the standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), as some jurisdictions require. See, e.g., United States v. Graham, 91 F.3d 213, 217, 221-22 (D.C.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Ineffective assistance of counsel is a
holding that there is no indication that the district court abused its discretion in denying the discoverysanction motion holding that the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendants timely motion for the substitution of the participating prosecutor in order to permit the defense to call the prosecutor as a witness holding that the defendant must demonstrate not only that the district court abused its discretion in denying a motion for substitution of counsel but that the defendant was prejudiced by that error under strickland holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint