
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laquisia Patrice GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 03-10120.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 26, 2003.
    
      Renee E. Harris, Fort Worth, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Donald R. Scoggins, Dallas, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before SMITH, DEMOSS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Laquisia Patrice Green appeals her judgment of conviction and sentence, following a guilty plea, for conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 871 and 1344. Green argues that the district court deprived her of counsel of her choice and also argues that the court should have construed a particular pro se letter to the court as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea.

Green does not dispute that then-retained counsel’s motion to withdraw did not satisfy the requirements of Local Criminal Rule 57.12. District courts may implement and enforce local rules. E.g., United States v. Yeatts, 639 F.2d 1186, 1188 (5th Cir.1981). Green has not demonstrated that the district court’s order, changing counsel’s status from retained to court-appointed, infringed on her constitutional rights. See United States v. Hughey, 147 F.3d 423, 429 (5th Cir.1998). Green is not entitled to the appointment of counsel of her choice. United States v. Breeland, 53 F.3d 100, 106 n. 11 (5th Cir.1995); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 228 (5th Cir.l993)(28 U.S.C. § 2254 case).

Green has not demonstrated plain error with respect to her argument that the district court should have construed a pro se letter as a motion to withdraw her guilty plea. See Fed. R.Crim. P. 52(b); United States v. Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc) (citing United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 730-37, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993)), abrogated in part, Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     