Case ID: f-appx_237/html/0249-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Richard James HUMPAL, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-50094.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 5, 2007.
    
    Filed June 15, 2007.
    Becky S. Walker, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Sean K. Lokey, Esq., USR-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Karen L. Landau, Esq., Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard James Humpal appeals from his conviction for assaulting a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Humpal contends that the district court erred in allowing him to represent himself at trial in accordance with Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), because he never unequivocally stated that he wished to represent himself. The record, however, reflects an unequivocal request for self-representation. See Adams v. Carroll, 875 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir.1989) (conditional request for self-representation not equivocal where defendant persisted in seeking to waive his right to counsel); United States v. Massey, 419 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2019, 164 L.Ed.2d 786 (2006); cf. United States v. Kienenberger, 13 F.3d 1354, 1356 (9th Cir.1994) (no error in district court’s denial of counsel’s motion to withdraw, where defendant always accompanied requests to be “counsel of record” with a request for appointment of advisory or standby counsel).

AFFIRMED. 
      
      This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.