good morning your owners tim warner for mr vanga the appellant in this case i think if there is one theme in my briefings and today it is communication and i think mr vang i think it is clear from the record that he is articulate he is intelligent i can't count on my fingers the number of times he said i want to represent myself  he said things like i want to represent represent myself period because i'm a twenty nine there is no support for this idea that he's been manipulative that he was seeking del said that he was not seeking delay and wanted to get things moving as fast as he could so there are three critical times when he goes to the scenario of requesting that's correct saying  something we look at for clear error so we have a very high standard here right i'm not sure about that and i could maybe check my notes and address rebuttal but you're saying that and i'm asking about our standard of review which i understand is clear for clear air i think that it's laid out there what was what was said so i think the court that the judge's findings the judge said that he was making his findings because it was in his view conditional and i think that's really what this what this boils down to a lot of our discussion is this issue of conditional was if it is conditional was a conditional if it is conditional does that somehow make it ambiguous and unclear so that the court can just deny it and i think that's what it was down to so i'm not so sure well if you take the first requests yes  equivocal that he was very clear about what he wanted he wanted to represent himself and he wanted to have make sure he would express legitimate concerns about boy i need to have some library access to do this granted his request his motion to proceed pro se and then he says well i didn't get everything it was erroneous because i was did i effective assistance of counsel because i didn't get everything i asked for an hour to have effective assistance and we have cases specifically saying you can't be sought that way i just do not see a basis to say that the court was being whipsawed he wanted he wanted some special access he was concerned he was very articulate intelligent gentleman he was concerned hey i'm in custody i need to have access to these materials if i'm going to do it i think that it should have been handled differently i think the court has said look at it i'm denying i can't send you to a special library so i'm denying that but i will grant your request as what the court could have done i think that it should have done but if it did not know it instead it what he did and he decided to stay with counsel ok that was the first proceeding and then there was a second one and then there was a third one where the judge had brought the parties there and he said ok but after the plea right no that was there was one on may twenty second right before before the plea where he said i'll stay with counsel ok and then we get to the one at sentencing which i think is a significant one which i think is key in similar to the court's decision in the  but i remember that the court did say that but the court didn't rule on it in the court at the senate in proceeding was adamant that it hadn't been heard you know if we look at the court's words the court's few he was going to allow him to present it  so i think the you know even if he didn't say i want to represent myself he like he says that the santos was fine except that she would bring the jurisdictional motion and it's hard to see why  quizzical request to represent yourself for all purposes i think it i think it was unequivocal just because you're saying you want to represent yourself and you're going to need some time to present th remember he he actually thought that miss sentence was going to file that and he says that she her investigator came on the wednesday before the sentencing returned it and that's why he shows up there and he was unable  going to be present and it wasn't and he would not have needed much of a continuance you know a week continuance it wasn't a continued excessively i don't think there's any basis to say he was seeking delay or he was being manipulative there's no thanks samuel was going to sustain united states attorney from sacramento please the court judge if you are correct the standard of review for the district court's finding that thang go was equivocal is clear air and that is stated in the u s vs mendez vs sanchez case that cited in the government's brief what i want to do is to explain to the court using the court own cases what it means to be equivocal and equivocal means she's be unequivocal means just that unequivocal there is a case that the ninth circuit handed down assistance of counsel and then when you combine that case with the this court's ruling in meeks versus craven which is found that forty two seconds for sixty five and the jump site is for sixty seven ninth circuit nine seventy three in that case what happened was a was a devious case and the defendant in that case wanted to make a motion very similar to the fed in here and the district court there denied the motion the district court then inquired you still want to represent yourself and the defendant used these words yes your honor i think i will the this court ruled that the words i think i will hardly met the constitutional criteria for waiver of counsel and that the through the i think i will was equivocal and when you look at the facts in this case starting from the first time that mr are three prongs one the nature of the charges number two the penalties involved and number three the dangers and hazards of soft representation so soon as mr vega brought up the subject of suffer representation the district court was duty bound to give the infrared of warnings which it did and the court then inquired of mr van gogh what do you want to represent yourself and mr vegas response was he wanted to talk to his attorney record thin when allowed mr bennett to consult with his attorney and then asked mr vanga again do you want to represent yourself and at that time mr vanga started asking questions about whether he would be able to have access to the title eighteen library that he never stated what books were  not available at the second to come in you law library and he should have know he had been housed in that county la county jail for possibly five to six months before that so if he wanted to represent himself he could have and should have gone to the jail to see what was available he never told the court that the library was insufficient in any way and what mr rangle said in response to the court effectively represent himself the court then went into a third round of of discussing with mr vanga what were his concerns the court was trying to ferret out what concerns mr vanga had the court offered to mr vanka the investigator to help him get resources legal resources if he could not get access to the  resources at the jail law library and the third time that the district court asked mr van gogh do you want to represent yourself he said i'm sorry i'm confused at that stage and with the assistance of the santos he pled guilty without the benefit of a plea agreement that was on january twenty ninth sentencing was set for april seventeenth two thousand thousand and fifteen and the court asked mr vango do you want to represent yourself and mr van gogh was equivocal again he tied his desire to represent himself to access to a law library and access to a computer so that he could be effective in his representation well the law does not give him those choices if he wants effective representation the sixth amendment says  the court and the taxpayer will give him appointed counsel but if a defendant wants to represent himself there is no way that any court from guarantee that a defendant can be effective in representing himself and that's why the quartz impose the requirement that a defendant making an unequivocal choice do you want to represent yourself then say so it's not that hard all mr vanka had to say was i want to represent myself after receiving the red of warnings from the district court but for whatever reason mr vango would not and he could not state those words and leave it with a simple response i want to represent myself each time that mr vang was asked that question he tied his desire to represent himself with something else legal access to a better law library computers filing and on the twenty ninth the filing of a motion challenging the subject matter jurisdiction of the court keep in mind mr vanga had prepared that motion and had mentioned that motion on may fifteenth two thousand and fifteen that was two weeks before mr vang and with the sentencing on may twenty ninth if you really really wanted to file that motion he could have filed that motion he could to demand representation however he did not do that keep in mind on may twenty second he said he was counsel she said that she would stay on board and that she would do the best that she could for mr vanga except a week later at the sentencing hearing what happens is mr vanga leans over to the santals and says court then inquires well are you ready to represent yourself without a continuance or and mr banta says he wants to continue if he wants to file the subject matter  that is untimely if he wants one it's represent himself he should have conducted himself just the way that all the lawyers for good have to conduct himself according to the procedural rules and the substance of rules of court he should a father's motion earlier it could have been decided and in this case the district court kept asking probing of mr banta do you want to represent yourself without the continuance and mr vang vacillating that's the whole history of mr vang his conduct in this case he kept vacillating between representing himself or but is always tied to some condition that he that that that he that he wanted and that is not what the courts allow and the equivocal request means just that and it was simple for m  just a couple points there is this question about i want to i want to effectively represent myself and i think that i think we're misconstruing this when we say oh that's what he's saying is effective representation like right to effective counsel you know the quote this court has said that the proceed if it does have a meaningful it has to be meaningful and i think we're reading too much into it if we're drawing a parallel to effective counsel he's just saying look at i think that to me to represent myself to be effective or make this meaningful i'm going to need his concerns he needs a law library so i thought i wouldn't put that spin on it i think it's more concerned about meaningful representation and the other thing that was brought up is look at he gets to the time of sentencing and he was too late he should have filed his motions earlier we couldn't ok because he had an attorney that wouldn't file and he he'd already been denied the ability to represent himself so he couldn't file them and what he says in there as i said wednesday before sentencing his attorney returned those motions he thought that she was going to bring