morning your honour's may please the court my name is there could be arma and i have been appointed to represent mr harrington in this matter the sole issue in this matter is whether or not the district court erred in finding that mr harrington waived his right to counsel at sentencing and we would respectfully submit that there was an invalid waiver as this court's where the court must consider whether in to what extent the district conducted a formal hearing on the defendant's decision to represent himself and i would that the hearing that was conducted in this matter was insufficient to find a waiver of mr harrington's right to counsel at sentencing the questions were very brief and they asked if mr harrington it ever  has he ever represented himself at sentencing has he ever cross examined or conducted examination of a witness has he ever argued a motion and has he reviewed the sentencing guidelines and was he under the influence of drugs or alcohol or medication and i respectfully submit the fact colloquy was insufficient to find a valid way of or of counsel the court also has to consider what other evidence is in the record that establishes whether the defendant understood the dangers in it and just advantages of self representation i would submit that the there isn't any additional evidence that would support a valid waiver of counsel in the sense that mr harrington was a career offender mr harrington faced a ten year mandatory minimum he was not advised of the statutory maximum penalties he was not advised of the fact that there had been a fifty one file so it was possible that he may have been a career ender and he was not advised of the facing this is your statutory penalty but he did not advise him that these were the substantiated these were the statutory maximum penalties in this case he should have said you're facing up to life imprisonment you have a ten year mandatory i don't believe that the sentencing would be substantially continued because at this point where we were at the pre sentence report had been filed and strike that what had happened is he was allowed to proceed pro se and mr harrington did not have a lawyer to discuss the pre sentence report with he did not have standby counsel he didn't have anybody so sentencing probably could already been through two lawyers right yes he did your honor ok and at the time that the second lawyer had been discharged the district court did not advise mr harrington this is it i'm not appointing any other lawyers to you it's either you work with mr lawful or you're going to proceed pro se there was no conversation with mr harrington like that and also there was no stand by counsel either to at least allow mr harrington to consult with have you have does t by the defendant i mean that's that's clear from these exchanges and i would think that that's a factor that under our case law there's evidence of trying to ga system by a veteran of the system is something that the district court consider and we can consider in deciding whether the waiver was knowing involuntary yes your honor i agree that the case law does say that if  defendant is if you want my answer the question or at least if the defendant is own actions are causing the pro se representation but i would argue i respectfully submit that i believe that his behavior consistent with unsophistication in the system yes he's been through the system before but he has never been indicted federally before he has never proceeded to sentencing on his own before another of the state system you're saying yes yes your honor i do not good morning your honour's may please the court greg walters on behalf of the united states now we're asking the court to affirm the judgment this case i think the record is clear under any of the factors that are relevant and seen if there was a waiver first he starts rattling his sabers about wanting to proceed pro se back in february of two thousand and fourteen he comes back from this competency hearing he raises the issue at least somewhat again on june twenty six and then on the day of his sentencing hearing of july thirtieth his attorney comes and says judge he says he wants to represent himself at that time a colloquy takes place and twice he says explicitly once yes i insist on representing myself but court then admonishes him that i think this goes without saying but this is the worst idea you have ever had and he said with that admonition do you still want to represent yourself and he said i don't see how he's manipulating the system if he gets a lawyer whether it was the manipulation well if we could back up his first head to lawyer all right so he's got i don't understand what is the big deal about giving him a lawyer for why not give when you consider what this person is facing the way of a punishment why not let him have a lawyer may i answer your question well obviously i asked you a question so you know  big deal is that you have a lead against that against jumping back and forth between so why well i believe it's that's why this court has said it's within the district court's discretion of whether there's a waiver i  much at stake for this guy and we're just talking about a lawyer and sentencing what is the big deal now if in the middle of the middle of the sensing proceeding he fires the lawyer sure at that point well best answer questions the district judge can stay calm all recognizing the system is being manipulated could you remind us mr walters about the sequence in terms of conviction the  lingering effort to appear incompetent the competency evaluation and then the the requests for to proceed without a lawyer thank you roger yes that the case was tried in the summer of two thousand court recognizes ok we have an issue here i'm going to appoint you new counsel mr lovell was appointed in january i believe twenty fifth of two thousand and fourteen mr harrington's counsel mr lovell filed a motion  for a competency examination after having gone over the pre sentence report with this client on january nineteenth line by line which showed he was a career founder mr harrington may have complete my answer please  the court grants that motion with with much skepticism because mr clinton is claiming to lucian beliefs but there's been no evidence of that he then go throughout the proceedings then goes to the bureau of prisons for a competency examination and a psychologist or five years longer because he had a lawyer or did not have a lawyer and no i'm saying if he had had a lawyer suppose if he had a lawyer he would have received five years shorter sentence that possible so you're saying if that's true if that's a possibility you're saying well you know this is this guy's a pain in the rear end so we're going to punish him by giving him five year longer s i've said nothing of the sort of respect right i've said nothing of the sort that we're punishing him for proceeding procyon no no but you don't understand the point if you would have received a slightly lower sentence with a lawyer with a lawyer than by denying him the lawyer you punish him for being with an extra five years but your honor he had paid the lawyer at sentencing he shows up for sentencing on july thirtieth and says i want to proceed  he didn't express a desire for a lawyer it sounds when we first show yes when the sentencing hearing finally did take place on september second mid hearing when he loses his pretrial motions he then says ok now i want a lawyer in the middle of the hearing but when we first show up for sentencing judge until i didn't really look he's being a pain i understand and the middle of the year in the ass for the lawyer but i don't but given the stakes to him and the fact that we all know these people cannot represent themselves cop a plea why is it such a big deal to let him have them lawyer and get it and then when he does have the lawyer your honor and we show up then two weeks later it's september sixteenth and now he's having a problem with his third way or in the court and he says now i want to represent myself again and then he tries to do that we could go back and forth potentially with the pro se lit to where there is no finale that under this court's waiver principles under under the colloquy that took place under the context of this case and mr harrington won his case done his own way i think the court was very prudent in stating at that hearing on september second i believe that i can predict what you will do he has gamed the system and done so somewhat successfully up to this point by causing delays to his behavior he guilty until he was sam's i believe he was found guilty in june of two thousand and thirteen he was sentenced in september two thousand and fourteen your honor because there was a replacement of counsel there was the competency examination and then he said he wanted to proceed pro s and that the waited till september second two thousand and fourteen that's somewhat longer than normal i would usually we're ninety down hundred i think one hundred twenty days absent some type of complexity between conviction the sentence just to make sure their stand you do you say that in the minute that he starts off the scent seeing hearing he as a lawyer and in the middle he says he doesn't want the lawyer anymore i apologize by confusing the court on july thirtieth the day the sensing hearing was scheduled for he has a lawyer he shows up he says i want to proceed pro se the court grants his request sets a sentencing hearing for september second and then in the middle of the september second hearing after supposed trial pro se motions were denied he says ok i now want a lawyer right so he did actually read at the end during the sentencing he did want to have lawyer and as i said expressing a desire why did such a big deal i mean given given the stakes to him of the fact that he's quite helpless without a lawyer so i could the judge said ok give your lawyers your less chance you have to listen to this lawyer the court could have done that yes all right i know that the question is whether the court abused its discretion by not doing this isn't busa of discretion the i'm tired of hearing that after thirty four years tell me what it means when whether any other reasonable jurists could agree with the district court's decision or whether it was arbitrary and i don't think any of that occurred in this case at the sentencing hearing did i think a lot of money didn't mr harrington call some witnesses and he called for witnesses you know to two siblings his mother and his father in fact when he said you couldn't do a sentencing the court said you have any evidence to put on he had four witnesses prepared to be put on i recognize your honors that i don't have any time for a bottle but i just wanted to clarify i just want to clarify one of the court's questions at the september second two thousand and fourteen hearing what mr harrington said is as my actual sentencing phase i don't think i'm capable of actually representing myself through the actual sentencing phase with with the situation so he once it got he filed the pro se post trial motions but then once he got to the actual sentencing phase he did articulate the fact that