N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. KEVIN HAW KINS, AKA Ke t T. Hawkins, De fe nda

n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-10145

D.C . No. 2:10-c r-00458-JAM -3
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia J ohn A. M e nde z , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d M arc h 15, 2017 Subm itte d April 21, 2017 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , GOULD, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. De fe nda nt Ke vin Ha

wkins a ppe a ls his c onvic tion for witne ss ta m pe ring in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1512(b)(2)(B ). Ha wkins c o nte nds tha

t the distric t

c ourt viola te d his Sixth Ame ndm e nt right to re pre se n t him se lf a

nd wa s without jurisdic tion to im

pose his se nte nc e . W e a gre e tha t the distric t

c ourt c l e arly e rre d in 

# F IL ED APR 21 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.finding Ha

wkins’ s re q

ue st to repre se nt him se lf e quivoc a l, va c ate his c onvic tion
and se n te nc e , a

nd re m and. W e do not re a c h the m e rits of Ha w kins’ s c ha l le nge to his se nte n c e . The Sixth Am e ndm e nt gua rante e s a c rim ina l de fe nda nt the right to c ounse l,
a s we ll a s the c orolla

ry right to waive c ounse l a nd re pre se n t him se lf in his c rim ina l proc e e dings. Se e Fare tta v . C alifornia , 422 U.S. 806, 821 (1975). “If a de fe nda n t’ s re que st to proc e e d

pro se is tim e l y , not for purpose s of de la y , une quivoc a l, volunta

ry , inte llige nt a

nd the de fe nda

nt is c om pe te n t, it m

ust be gran te d.” Unite d State

s v . Mane ss , 566 F.3d 894, 896 (9th C ir. 2009). For a
re que s t to be une quivoc a l, the “ de fe nda n t m ust m ak e an e xplic it c h oic e be twe e n e xe rc ising theright to c ounse l a nd the right to se l f-re pre se ntation so tha t a c ourt
m ay be re a sona

bly c e rta in tha

t the de fe nda

nt wishe s to re pre se nt him se lf.” U nite d State s v . Arlt , 41 F.3d 516, 519 (9th C ir. 1994). “ A distric t c ourt’ s finding tha t a de fe nda n t’ s wa ive r is e quivoc a l is a finding of fa c t

re vie we d for c l e ar e rror.” Unite d State s v . Me nde

z-Sanc he z , 563 F.3d 935, 944 (9th C ir. 2009). 1

1 W e have not y e t

c la rifie d whe the r de nia l of a re que st to proc e e d pro se is re vie we d de novo or for a

b u se of disc re tion. Se e U nite d State

s v . K a c zy nsk i , 239 F.3d 1108, 1116 (9th C ir. 2001). Unde r e ithe r sta nda rd, howe ve r, the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing Ha

wkins’ s re que s t. 2The re c ord doe s not support the distric t c ourt’ s finding tha

t Ha wkins wa s e quivoc a l in his re que st to proc e e d pro se
. The nature of Ha wkins’ s re que st wa s c le ar to the pa

rtie s a nd to thejudge , suc h tha

t the distric t c ourt se t

a he a ring sole ly to a d dre ss Ha

wkins’ s re q

ue s t. At the Fare t ta he aring, Ha wkins re p e at e dly

and
una m biguously a sse rte d tha

t h e wishe d to re pre se nt him se lf, without qua lific ations
or re s e rvations. The distric t c ourt wa rne d Ha wkins of thediffic ultie s in proc e e ding pro se , but Ha

wkins pe rsiste d. His re que st wa s not there sult of “ m e re whim or c a pric e .” Unite d State

s v . Robinson , 913 F.2d 712, 714 (9th C ir. 1990). And he
c le arly m a de his c ontinue d re que st with “ e y e s ope n .” Fare tta , 422 U.S. a t 835. The gove rnm e n t’ s a

rgum e nts to thec ontra

ry are not pe rsua sive . Tha

t Hawkins sought to re

pre se nt him se lf two we e ks a fte r inform ing the c ourt tha t he
wante d to be re pre se nte d by c ounse l doe s not diminish theune quivoc a l na ture of his re que st a

t his Fare tta he aring. Finding othe rwise would sugge st tha

t a ny re que s t to proc e e d

pro se is e quivoc a l unle ss the de fe nda nt a sse rts the right to se lfre pre se ntation from

the outse t of his c rim i na l proc e e dings. No a uthority supports this c onte ntion, a

nd we de c line to a dopt it he re . Fare tta se lf-re pre se ntat ion
re que s ts ha

ve be e n m a de by

de fe nda nts who we re pre viously

re pre se nte d

by
c ounse l without initia

l obje c tion by

the de fe nda

nt. Se e , e .g. , Unite d State

s v . Farias , 618 F.3d 1049, 1051–52 (9th C ir. 2010).
3The distric t c ourt m a de no finding tha t Ha wkins’ s re q

ue st wa s untim e ly

or that the re que st wa s m a de in ba d fa ith to se c ure de l ay or a buse the judic ia l proc e ss. Nor do the pa

rtie s dispute that Ha

wkins wa s “ m a de aware of (1) the nature of the
c ha rge s a ga inst him ; (2) the possiblepe n a ltie s; a nd (3) the da

nge rs a nd disa dva nta ge s of se lf-re pre se ntation.” Unite d State s v . Farhad

, 190 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th C ir. 1999). The distric t c ourt c l e arly

e rre d in de ny i ng Ha

wkins’ s re que st to proc e e d pro
se on the ground tha

t Ha wkins wa s e quivoc a l. The re que st wa s une quivoc a l, tim e ly , a nd inform e d. B e c a

use the de nia l of this re q

ue st is struc t

ura l e rror, and not subje c t to ha

rm le ss e rror re v ie w, we va c ate Ha wkins’ s c onvic tion a

nd re m and for a
ne w tria l. Se e Farias , 618 F.3d a t 1055. 2 V ACAT E D AND RE M ANDE D.

2 W e pre viously

withdre w subm i ssion a

nd orde re d Ha

wkins to a d

v ise us within te n da

y s if he wa

nte d to withdra

w his a ppe a l or proc e e d for the pa n e l to de c ide it. Ha

wkins file d a

pro se re sponse , se e D kt. No. 39, which we c an only inte rpre t a s re que sting us to de c ide his a p pe a l on thede n ia l of his Fare tta re que st. W e are the re fore , sim

ulta ne o us with the

filing of this m

e m orandum

disposition, filing a n orde r re subm i tting thea ppe a l for de c i sion. Ha

wkins ha s shown tha

t his right to repre se nt him se lf wa s viola te d and the re fore his c onvic tion a n d se nte nc e are v a c ate d a

nd the c a se is re m ande d for a ne wtria l . Ha

wkins’ s re sponse m ake s num e rous othe r re que sts of this c ourt, whic h are not prope rly

be fore us a

nd inste a d should bea ddre sse d to thedistric t c ourt on re m a n d. 4