With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". timeliness of the motion; (2) the adequacy of the court’s inquiry; and (3) whether the attorney/client conflict was so great that it had resulted in total lack of communication preventing an adequate defense. Gallop, 838 F.2d at 108. In this case, Duarte filed his motion only two weeks before sentencing, and after pleading guilty. The district court conducted an adequate inquiry into Duarte’s reasons for requesting his counsel withdraw. Duarte’s sole reason for wanting new counsel was that his counsel had advised him that the letter from a witness indicating that Duarte had nothing to do with the drugs was not going to help him. However, this is not sufficient to warrant Duarte being appointed or retaining new counsel. See United States v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 435, 443-44 (4th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Duarte had no other complaints about his

A: holding that where trial counsel was not ineffective appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise claim of ineffectiveness of trial counsel
B: holding that affidavit of appellate counsel summarizing conversations with trial counsel in which trial counsel admitted making errors is hearsay and cannot establish ineffective assistance claim
C: holding that disagreement with counsel concerning trial strategy and tactics does not constitute a breakdown in communications sufficient to warrant new counsel
D: holding that in determining whether there exists a valid waiver of the right to counsel in the criminal setting the court may consider a defendants lack of good faith in working with appointed counsel including an unreasonable refusal to cooperate with counsel or an unreasonable request for substitution of appointed counsel and the timeliness of defendants request for new counsel particularly when a defendant makes an untimely request for new counsel  under circumstances which are likely to result in a continuance
C.