first one which is the argument that the district court reversible error by requiring him to proceed pro se at a critical stage in the proceedings of this case specifically the three weeks preceding trial  affirmatively in vote so there are two sides of the same coin the default position is that the defendant will be represented by counsel and in this case the district court had appointed counsel to represent m and he was represented at the time that the district court forced him to proceed pro se what precipitated this was that had been filing that had been making pro se filings in the months leading up to the trial in this case he was a spousal and he's sovereign citizen ideas and disputing the court's jurisdiction over the matter and over him and essentially just refusing to acknowledge the court's authority  case at one point he was sent off for a competency hearing to determine whether he was even competent to stand trial and after that evaluation the psychiatrist talked about these beliefs that he has and that they are you know that he he firmly believes them but nevertheless he was competent to do assistance counsel and to understand the proceedings and to proceed to trial so that a competency hearing just a court found him competent and things move forward but then there was a docket call three weeks before trial and at that point miskito he said something along the lines of you know what is this court's claim please state the claim against me more of this sovereign citizen ideology which the court took to be a motion to dismiss the indictment and the court denied then at that point the court there was an exchange between the court and whiskey which the court said your honor i haven't accepted reale who was the assistant federal public defender who'd been appointed to represent him i haven't accepted mr be a reality my attorney i don't consent to him being my attorney i have never asked him to be my attorney and so then the court responds ok that so i c as a motion to withdraw mr b a reality or a term you have a right to represent yourself the motion is granted you will represent yourself mr b in reality stand by counsel well that was an error because this court requires a two step process before the sen may be allowed to proceed pro se first the defend it must clearly and unequivocally invoke his right to self representation mosquita didn't do that here in this hearing and really at all points leading up to  he was just spouting this nonsense about the the court not having a claim over him as a flesh and blood human being as opposed to the corporate identity that was a sensible charged in the indictment and evidently the district court was frustrated with his behavior but the court should not have just said as it did here ok then you'll be representing yourself because again in order for  far presentation and his partner at some point not prior to that point it's only after this point that the district court starts saying really in just a general way that it's a bad idea to represent yourself you shouldn't do this you shouldn't act as your own attorney now had missed having a speedy a made a clear and unequivocal request to proceed pro se that's what the district court would have to do but even if what m is construed as a clear and over unequivocal request these reports for read a colloquy really was insufficient because like i said the district court just advised him in kind of a general generic way that this is a bad idea you shouldn't do that but the court didn't engage and determine that mosquitoes really understood the consequences and the dangers in the pitfalls of acting as his own attorney in this case and it's not enough that he was expressing a general dissatisfaction with his attorney or even saying that he wanted to fire his attorney or that he was refusing to acknowledge the genesee of the proceedings again there has to be a clear and unequivocal request which he did not make now the government has been arguing that in the skidi manifested a desire to represent himself by virtue of his conduct in this case but the cases that have held that a defendant can waive the right to counsel by conduct involve different factual situations the two cases that the government has sided in the twenty eight jail letter that filed a few days ago one of them found were involved a situation where the defendant was financially able to retain counsel and the district court had advised him more than once you need to hire counsel and you failed to do so by the date that the court had said and so the district court said you'll be proceeding pro se in this court with really very little analysis just said you know the facts speak for themselves little additional authority is required you know we don't need to cite any additional authority he waived his right to counsel and there was no error requiring to put him to proceed p se the other case of the government relies on higginbotham is that it is a heavy this case arising out of a twenty fifty four petition and there was a similar situation in that case the defendant just kept failing to clearly established rule was decided by the supreme court because a fair reading of the case that recognized the right self representation didn't address that type of situation or defendant and ages and dilatory conduct  also that he interrupt you here all over everything you're saying is his right on but what's being omitted his the overarching fact that you're it was one of the sovereign citizens and republic of texas type of thing so here's actions were all to disregard or deny the existence of the state of texas the united states and its court and he's had five lawyers if i am counting right can't you and camaro two or three depending on how you count it's yet two or three depending on how and is basically engaging in obstreperous conduct and simply refusing to cooperate with the proceedings but that's a different situation from say hitting bottom of the bell or where the defendant was gauging dilatory conduct that actually delayed the progress of the proceedings in those cases the failure to hire an attorney was an impediment to moving forward with a case that's not what happened here at all stages mr risky was represented by counsel prior to this hearing where the district judge required him to proceed pro se his appointed assistant federal public defender had said that he was ready for trial to be ready for trial by the date of the court that already is set mr berio was kept on a stand by counsel and then the morning of the jury trial at record two eighty seven the court again in cages mr risky in again says don't represent yourself and then says how do you want to proceed in mr mckeith miskito he says i want to be pro se center because i don't want to lawyer and i don't want mr via rio how much more clear could he be well we're not arguing that he was denied the right of improperly denied the right to counsel at trial we're arguing that he was improperly denied the right to coun during those three weeks prior to trial that that that statement there is consistent with the whole three weeks i mean other words it's not as if the judge said three weeks ago you don't get counsel whatever and he's fumbling around and shows if he goes i've been in the desert with no counsel now want counsel this is consistent with exactly what's happened in the prior hearing so i don't really understand your position he wanted to be processed before he wanted he made that clear here i don't understand the three weeks before were it's consistent it's not inconsistent if it were inconsistent then you would have an argument well i don't think there's any case lost for the proposition that aroused been here all along as standby counsel has been available to mr risky the whole time and he's saying i'm telling you again i think this is a bad idea now how do you want to proceed i want to be pro se which is consistent with what happened three weeks before not post h it's consistent well except that it's getting never said anything of the sort three weeks prior and in fact earlier in the case when there was a motion by his original hired attorney to withdraw the magistrate judge conducted that hearing said the the morning of trial he agreed he didn't during that period confessing you're asking to suppress sattar provide some evidence that should be suppressed or something like that is not concrete in those three weeks you're saying he gets another trial but the morning of trial he said he wanted to proceed pro se so the trial but that would be he would get again it clearly and unequivocally even by your admission wanted to proceed process and have a little trouble with the remedy i understand that if he's deprived of counsel at an important point and something happened in that point that we could rectify but i'm having trouble understanding how giving him another trial now with counsel that he said he didn't want is really rectifying the error your complaining about the denial of the right counsel as per se prejudicial so it doesn't matter what the hypothetical result would have been otherwise or what the defendant or an attorney could have done during that period of time when he was  counsel that's per se prejudicial but he had counsel he had mr virial this whole time so it's not like the judge said we're all get out of here don't talk to him anymore and so he's just sitting there in the for me to understand the theory here given the facts we have they're kind of unusual but i don't understand really how we would rectify what you're complaining of something kind of specific that i don't think is actually consistent with the facts and with what happened he had derailed the whole time the judge is trying to he just keeps wanting to change counsel in judging that to do that these like yours be your own you've got him you want to take him have him but in the meantime you don't want him well then you have to proceed from same there's no other choice you can't keep the defendant doesn't get to keep changing counsel that's that's appointed by the court well he wasn't even asking to change counsel he was just in his mind he didn't need an attorney because the proceedings were legitimate in the first place but he never said i want to represent myself and he just said i don't want mr riady out i don't want any attorney that's not the same thing as saying i want to read his  anything left but representing him how many times can he refuse or dismiss counsel without that constituting a clear determination by him if he's going forward to be representing himself even if he doesn't melt the word well if i think that goes to the to the court to the obvious question is what's the district court supposed to do in the situation when you have a defendant behaving this way and the answer is to keep as but only as standby counsel i mean does it make any the difference in those three weeks i understand a trial how it makes a difference i completely get that but in those three weeks he has counsel he has someone he can call up and ask him questions he has his counsel every bit as much as anybody who doesn't call their lawyer and still goes off and does what they want so why what what can we really do about those three weeks he has counsel he elects not to use and then he goes to trial aleck's not to use him and clearly and by your own admission elects not use him i'm so having trouble with this argument understand the kind of the theory the big picture the importance of the sixth amendment all that i get but as it applies here it seems question about whether mosquitoes would have access to any of the discovery in the case and that's the context in which the court said well you can review the discovery with mr b or reality but at the trial itself and this goes to the second issue that we raised  mr mosquito complained that during that three weeks he wasn't able to actually prepare for trial that he didn't have access to any legal materials in the facility that he was in because apparently he was in segregation for a reason that's not clear from the record  and that all he had was some lined paper with a pin that skips and so he was unable to do the sort of things that the government was able to do during those three weeks such as file proposed jury instructions the government filed a notice of intent to trial and being able to care for that and there's that i think the record as a whole reflects that mr mosquita wasn't probably making that up because his earlier pro se pleadings in the months prior i was odd as they were side of legal authority he was able to say he had the moment notarized for some reason he was able to file them with the district clerk but then in this final three weeks before trial he did none of that and he was unable as judge jane point out there's an absolutely no doubt at the trial that he says i want to be pro se i don't want to lawyer i don't want mr ability and judge we know you your account was right he had four lawyers at the district when when he when he says at the hearing i haven't accepted mr avila realises my attorney i don't consent to him being my attorney the court construes this as a as a request to proceed pro se trial i have nothing against mr miller rielle so there's no there's no problem with he's competent he's prepared for trial and he's announced that he's ready for trial agree with your opposing counsel that he was in fact that the judge misconstrued his statements at that the i guess it was the june hearing the earlier hearing and so for nineteen days he was deprived of full counsel me and standby counsel but he was deprived of fool counsel then what is the remedy if all the other facts are as you say but we were to conclude that that that the judge erred at that pretrial hearing and so there is these nine thousand days of the a stand by the not full council and what is the remedy well if if the remedy if the remedy is if it turns out to be a critical state the critical stage designation is important because if it's a critical stage then prejudice please present but if it's not a critical stage th and and prejudice is a persistent and he and you could go into whether there was there was prejudiced by by by denying if there was a denial by denying counsel at that point well it's the government government's position and our ethan turn to the second issue assume he is validly proceeding pro slavery what about the those three weeks where he couldn't get and the other the prejudice though is that the claims of prejudice are that their spin proposed jury instructions filed witness list for zero four b notice and impeachin convictions notice well there was no fool for be evidence at the trial there was no impeachment by convictions he had all the discovery these notices might my position would be these notices didn't require any pretrial response they were prepared tory matters and there wasn't therefore the potential for substantial prejudice for not having counsel if if if if he did not have counsel so that that would be the analysis i think as far as prejudice as far as remedy but as far as his as far as his election to proceed pro se because villareal competent and because it's implicit that there's not going to be a fifth or sixth attorney appointed there's no reason to fire them stability so that the if the only two options are conduct so it's true is there any harm in those three weeks from the designation of mr greer alice standby counsel i understand it trial that there's a difference between being counsel and standby counsel but it seems to me explain this notice or explain the jury issue or fasano thing so you kind of get the best of both worlds so in that circumstance where it's not a total deprivation of counsel but rather the presence of standby counsel pretrial can we presume prejudice is that an his and his in the courts telling them to utilize the standby counsel so that that the first the first point on clear choice is is what you are seen judge haynes it's it's a continuation when he says i don't want i want to proceed process i don't want any attorney it's not it's not that you're taking the trial part but looking at it in isolation it's perfectly consistent with what happened at the hearing and so it's a continuation of his desire it's a validation of his desire to proceed pro se back at the hearing and then and then secondly you could say it's it's it's it's a it's a clear choice it's an implicit waiver by conduct because he only had two options and he rejected the only other option and then the third way is the third way you could say that that there's an a plus a waiver we do not need and express statement is obstructive council's trying to perceive this is as not that but he's continuously trying to obstruct and avoid the criminal proceedings with his is this frivolous and time wasting u c c arguments so you do not agree that he said that there were literally a threat i i you you're relying on his more on his conduct as well as i'm relying on his conduct as well as the consistent times in the reply brief and i've got it i need to address that it's it's the there's an argument made that he did say that he that he did say that he didn't want to represent himself and the they get to this argument by his his statement i do not consent to act as a surety for any case or for any entity that you have when you're in diapers and from that they're saying that he's saying i don't  i don't consent to represent myself but at the beginning of the trial the whole surety argument came out and let me excuse me for this quote but it says i look at the indictment you have the corporation united states of america on there versus another corporation which you've named neither of them is real i'm real now i understand that you want somebody to be a surety for that but i'm not assuming surety for that i'm not claiming that's me in fact because of that u c c one filing i have a priority holding on that property because that's what it is it's a piece of property so he's not he's not making the argument that that he wants to present per se he's been he's making the argument information the court already had his competency hearing material two months before this hearing about his above average intelligence is education is work history it's criminal history he faced a long prison term statutory maximum of twenty years the court correctly predicted the guideline range of one hundred twenty one to one hundred fifty one months he talked about the government was required to produce its cup atory material he said you could review discovery with with the assistant public defender the his jurisdictional objections were preserved for appeal that he had to have the proper decorum at the trial and then he said you really need to have a lawyer  many many times and then no less than five times it's inadvisable always a bad idea very bad idea the essence of the fred analysis is that he's aware of the nature of the charges and the consequence of the proceedings and the court did a fairly good job of doing that here so that he did understand the dangers and  as to the continuous issue he did not make a motion for a continuance at the beginning of the trial what he complained about was a minute ministry of segregation i only have lined paper and my pen skips and the the court can't be blamed for not taking that as a as a motion for a continuance so the analysis some whether there was a substantial abuse of discretion or not sue a spontaneous have ordering a continuance or for having a continu right before the last two witnesses of the trial where he does say he does sat wish i could subpoena witnesses or present evidence he never says what witnesses or whatever that's and even on appeal there is never any statement about what witnesses or evidence would would have been potentially helpful he had the assistance of four lawyers it wasn't a complicated case it's the only issue as to whether he was knowingly the getaway driver at a bank robbery case a six witness case the court found he had all the discovery so as to the things that were filed he says he's not proposed any different war direct questions are jury instructions it's all nonsense if you read that stuff it doesn't make any sense whatsoever and you know as this court said in burton versus collins when you have a defendant who's saying things that don't make any sense and which c reasonably be understood you know one way or the other that's not a clear and unequivocal invocation of the right to self representation and so in this case that all of that you know nonsense actually w lawyer because he believed that he was amusing from prosecution in this case and actually if the if the hearing when his first retained attorney had moved to withdraw the magistrate judge asked him well does he want to represent himself  attorney said he hasn't said that that he just believes that he's immune from prosecution so it's difficult to wrap our minds around it but muskeg was not saying one way or the other what he wanted to do rejection of counsel if there is not a clear and unequivocal request to proceed pro se then council must remain on the case and that's what the district court should have done well i took the district court dude with stand old standby counsel is not a substitute for the six or the no other option well there is simply keep in this case mr barry allen the case now at that point there likely would have been  we have your argument thank you you thank