MEMORANDUM **

Carl D. Edwards appeals from the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Edwards contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion for substitution of counsel because it *865 failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the nature, extent, and reasons for Edwards’ conflict with appointed counsel. The record reflects that the district court performed an adequate inquiry and concluded that the conflict centered upon a difference of opinion as to legal strategy. See United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 758, 763 (9th Cir. 2002); see also United States v. Mendez-Sanchez, 563 F.3d 935, 943-44 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.