FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 14, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 12 10 5

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 21 8- CR-T-N UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us GEORGE HOE Y MORRI S, a.k .a. Jo hn ny Ray

Fo rtu ne , Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Sep te m be r 14 , 20 12 ) Befo re ANDERSON an d EDMONDSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es , andEDENFIELD, * Dis tri ctJu dg e. Honora ble B . Avant Ede nfield, United States District Judge f or the Southern District of * Geor g ia, sitting by

desig nation.PER CURI AM:

On d ire ctap pe al , Defen da ntch al le ng es hi s co nv ic ti on an d 1 20 -m on th im pr is on m en t s en te nc e fo r m ak in g afal se st at em en t i n a n app li cat io n fo r a pa ss po rt, i n v io la ti on of 1 8 U.S.C. § 15 42 . Bri efl y st at ed , Defen da ntco nt en ds th athe was i nc om pe te ntto pro ceedpro se at s en te nc in g a ndth athe co ul d n otha ve vo lu nt ari ly andkn owi ng ly w ai ve d h is rig htto co un se l. Defe nd an t al so co nt en ds th atpro ceed in g p ro se v io la te d h is du e pr oc es s ri gh ts ; an d t ha t h is co un se l wer e in effe ct iv e. The Dis tri ctCo urt co m

m it te d n o e rro r infin di ng an d c on cl ud in g -- ba se d i n pa rt o n arel iabl e p sychi atric rep ort an d o n Def en da nt ’s own act s -- th atDefen da nt was co m pe te ntan d t ha t Def

en da ntkn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly w ai ve d h is rig htto co un se l atsen te nc in g. Fu rth erm or e, eac h o f Defen da nt ’s anc il la ry co nt en ti on s i s wit ho utm eri t. We affirm Defen da nt ’s con vi ct io n a ndsen te nc e. BACKGROUND Hig hl y sp eci fic fact s d riv e th e o ut co m e o f th is cas e. So , we setfor th th e fact s i n d et ai l. We hig hl ig htesp eci al ly D efen da nt ’s so m et im es -co m pe te ntan d 2so m et im es -in co m pe te ntst atus at t he di ffer en t s ta ge s o f tr ia l an d t he act s o f Defen da nt ’s m an y

di ffer en t l awy ers . A fed eral gra ndjury in di ct edDefen da ntform ak in g afal se st at em en t i n a n ap pl ic at io n fo r a p as sp ort. The jud ge ap po in te d J on Carl to n Taylorto rep res en t Defen da ntat t ria l. Defe nd an t wai ve d h is rig htto tes ti fy at t ria l, b utrev eal ed du rin g aco ll oq uy with th e co urt t ha t h e su ffer edfro m Po st -tr au m at ic Str es s Dis or de r (“ PTSD”). Defen da ntals o re ve al edth athe was t ak in g d iff eren t 1 m ed ic at io ns . Tay lo r an d the go ve rn m en t’s l awy er -- S us an Red m on d -- kn ew of

2 no reas on to qu es ti on Defen da nt ’s com pe te nc e to waiv e h is rig htto tes ti fy at t ria l. AndDefen da nthi m se lf e xp li ci tl y rai se d n o i ss ue ab ou t h is co m pe te nc e. The Dis tri ctCo urt fo un d Def

en da ntco m

pe te ntto waiv e h is rig htto tes ti fy . The jury co nv ic te d Def

en da nt . Afte r th e g ui ltph as e, bu t b efo re s en te nc in g, Def en da ntret ai ne d S us an G. Ja m es to rep res en t h im . Jam es en te redanap pe aran ce as Defen da nt ’s lawyer on 15 Decem be r 20 06 . The Di st ric t Co urt g ran te d Taylor ’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw as Def endant se rved in the United States Army duringthe Vietnam War a nd rec eived a

n 1 honorable discharg e. The Prese ntence Investig ation Report (“ PSI ”) a lso indicated that De fenda nt took various 2 psychotropic me dications and ha d ear lier bee n hospitaliz ed on seve ral oc casions formentalhealth re asons. The D istrict Court took judi cial notice of the fa ct that the psychotropic medications pre scribed to De fenda nt were commonly

used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. 3co un se l. Bas edonDefen da nt ’s PTSD anda de te rm in at io n o f 10 0% d is ab il it y by th e Vet eran s Ad m in is tra ti on , Jam es m ov edth e co urt (o n 2 6 F eb ru ary 20 07 ) fo r ps y ch ia tri c te st in g o f Defen da nt . Jam es fil eda ren ewedm ot io n fo r ps y ch ia tri c te st in g o n 1 8 M ay

20 07 . The m ot io n c it ed , am on g o th er t hi ng s, Defe nd an t’s

“bi zarr e” b eh av io r, th atDefen da ntch ewedhi s fi ng ern ai ls off , andth atDefen da nt fo rward edto th e Dis tri ctCo urt a c hi ld -p orno gr ap hy bo okcal le d “ Virg in Bri de .ne t.” Def

en da ntap pa ren tl y

au th or edth e b oo k. J am es als o n ot edth atsh e be li ev edDefen da ntwas s eem in gl y ob se ss edwit h i ss ue s n otpe rti ne ntto hi s ca se an d t ha t Def

en da ntsee m edin cap ab le of f oc us in g o n i ss ue s p ert in en t t o h is se nt en ci ng . The same day

-- 1 8 M ay

20 07 -- J am es fil eda m ot io n t o wi th dr aw as co un se l. At a21 May 200 7 h eari ng , Jam es su gg es te d t ha t Def en da ntha d a ls o fo rward edhe r a co py of h is bo okth atm ay ha ve co nt ai ne d c hi ldpo rn og rap hy, whi chm ay

ha ve pu t J am es invi ol at io n o f th e la w andrai se d o th er ethi cal co nc ern s. The Dis tri ctCo urt g ran te d J am es ’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw; a ndov er Defen da nt ’s ob

jecti on , th e co urt re ap po in te d Tayloras d efen se co un se l. The Dis tri ctCo urt co ns tru edDefen da nt ’s ob jecti on s as a m ot io n t o app oi ntne w and

4di ffer en t co un se l, wh ic h t he co urt d en ie d. Tay lo r rei te rat edco nc ern s ab ou t 3 Defen da nt ’s com

pe te nc y to go th ro ug h s en te nc in g. Taylor n ot edwhathe pe rcei ve d t o b e a ch an ge in Defen da nt ’s beh av io r in th e m on th s s in ce t ria l. On 1 7 J ul y

20 07 , th e Dis tri ctCo urt g ran te d Def en da nt ’s m ot io n fo r ps y ch ia tri c ex am in at io n t o d et erm in e Defen da nt ’s com pe te nc y forsen te nc in g. The Dis tri ctCo urt wro te th at“ itis po ss ib le th atbe twee n t ria l an d s en te nc in g, [Defe nd an t] has sl ip pe d fr om co m pe te nc y to in co m pe te nc y .” The Di st ric t Co urt ap po in te d Dr. Gu y

Ren fro to pe rfo rm

a ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on of De fen da nt , an d t he co urt co nt in ue d t o alat er d at e Defen da nt ’s sen te nc in g h eari ng . 4 On 1 2 Dec em

be r 20 07 , Tay lo r m ov edto wit hd raw as Defen da nt ’s lawyer be cau se Defen da ntha d fi le d aco m pl ai ntag ai ns t Taylorwit h t he Alab am a b ar as well as alaws ui t i n fe de ral co urt. Defe nd an t, i n turn, i nf orm edth e co urt t ha t Defen da ntco ul d n otworkwit h Taylor . Defen da ntals o c on te nd edth atth e go ve rn m en t h adcau se d J am es , hi s ea rli er l awy er, t o wi th dr aw. The Di stric t Co urt gr an te d Taylor ’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw on 11 Jan ua ry 20 08 . DuringJ une and July

2007, Def

endant a lso made a se ries of pr o se motions and 3 submissi ons to the District Court. The District Court denied a ll of the motions. The District Court continued the date of the sentenc ing he aringon sever al additional 4 occa sions to allow Dr. Renfro mor e time to complete a n evalua tion and produce a re port. In the months between the court’s or deringof a psycholog ical eva luation and when the court a djudge d Def endant c ompetent to underg o sentenc ing, D efe ndant re peate dly filed pro se motions and objections. 5The Dis tri ctCo urt re cei ve d Dr. Re nf ro ’s ps y ch ol og ic al ev al ua ti on of Defen da nton 14 Jan ua ry 20 08 . The rep ort n ot edth atDefen da ntex hi bi te d s ig ns of an xi et y an d d el us io na l t ho ug ht s o f a co ns pi racy agai ns t Def en da ntby vari ou s la w enf or cem en t ag en ts , po li ti ci an s, an d l awy ers . The rep ort p ro vi de d adi ag no si s of PTSD, bi po la r di so rd er wi th ps y ch ot ic featur es , andanin fla te d s en se of s el fworth (al on g wi th hypo th yro id is m an d C OPD). Altho ug h t he rep ort es ti m at edth at Defen da ntpo ss es se d abo ve -av erag e in te ll ig en ce an d p os se ss eda rat io na l un de rs ta nd in g o f th e le ga l p ro ces s, t he rep ort co nc lu de d t ha t d el us io ns of pe rs ecu ti on pre ve nt edDefen da ntfro m fun ct io ni ng at asen te nc in g h eari ng . The rep ort re co m

m en de d Def

en da ntrece iv e tr eat m en t an d u nd erg o a dd it io na l ev al ua ti on . On 1 6 J an ua ry

20 08 , th e Dis tri ctCo urt ap po in te d l awy er Ri ch ardK. Keit h to rep res en t Def

en da nt . On 1 7 J an ua ry

20 08 , Dani el G. Ham

m acce pt ed ap po in tm en t as Defen da nt ’s lawyer. The Dis tri ctCo urt t he n g ran te d Kei th ’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw. On 2 May 200 8, t he Dis tri ctCo urt fo un d Def en da ntto be in co m

pe te ntfor se nt en ci ng . Purs ua ntto 18 U.S.C. § 4 24 1( d) (1 ), th e co urt o rd eredth e Att orne y Gen eral to ho sp it al iz e Defen da ntto de te rm in e whe th er a s ub st an ti al pro babi li ty ex is te d t ha t Def

en da ntwou ldbe co m e co m pe te nt-- an d t he refo re b eco m e ab le to 6un de rg o s en te nc in g -- in th e fo res eeab le futur e. Defen da ntwas m ov edto th e

Fed eral Med ic al Cen te r in Bu tn er, No rth Caro li na(“ th e Cen te r”). Th e Cen te r pr ov id edth e co urt wi th st atus up da te s o n Def en da nt ’s con di ti on th ro ug ho ut Defen da nt ’s st ay

at the faci li ty. The Cen te r co m

pl et eda ps y ch ia tri c ev al ua ti on of De fen da ntin Sep te m be r 20 08 ; t he ev al ua ti on was fi le d i n t he Dis tri ctCo urt o n 6 Octo be r 20 08 . The ev al ua ti on co nc lu de d -- li ke Dr. Ren fro ’s rep ort h adco nc lu de d -- th atDefen da nt was m en ta ll y

in co m pe te ntto un de rs ta ndth e n atur e an d c on se qu en ces of t he se nt en ci ng pro ceed in gs an d a ls o u nabl e to ass is t i n h is own de fen se . Butth e ev al ua ti on als o p red ic te d t ha t wi th ad di ti on al ho sp it al iz at io n a ndtre at m en t, Defen da nt ’s com

pe te nc y to be sen te nc edm ig htbe res to red . Bas edon th e Cen te r’s ev al ua ti on , on21 Octo be r 20 08 , th e Dis tri ctCo urt ag ai n fo un d Def

en da ntto be in co m

pe te ntan d t he refo re u nabl e to be sen te nc ed . The co urt al so fou nd , ho wev er, tha t a s ub st an ti al pro babi li ty exi st edth at Defen da ntwou ldin th e fo res eeab le futur e at ta in th e co m pe te nc e n eces sa ry

to be se nt en ced . InFeb ru ary 20 09 , th e Cen te r co m pl et edan ot he r ps y ch ia tri c ev al ua ti on of Defen da nt . The Ce nt er co nc lu de d t ha t Def en da ntwas c om

pe te ntto st an d tria l, ab le to un de rs ta ndth e n atur e an d c on se qu en ces of t he pro ceed in gs ag ai ns t h im , 7an d abl e to ass is t p ro pe rly in h is own de fen se . Brie fly sta te d, t he Feb ru ary 20 09

ev al ua ti on rei te rat edso m e o f Defen da nt ’s pas t m en ta l h eal th is su es an d n ot ed Defen da nt ’s gen ui ne di st res s. Bu t t he Feb ru ary 20 09 ev al ua ti on als o c on cl ud ed th atDefen da ntwas n otde lu si on al or p sycho ti c an d d idno t s uf fer fr om sev ere m en ta l d is eas e o r de fect . Ins te ad , th e p rin ci pa l d ia gn os is in th is rep ort was m al in ge rin g. The Fe brua ry 20 09 ev al ua ti on als o n ot edanim pr es si on th at 5 Defen da ntpo ss es se d a nt is oc ia l p ers on al it y tra it s. On 1 6 Ap ril 20 09 , th e Dis tri ctCo urt h el d ahe ari ng on Defen da nt ’s m ot io n to di sm is s co un se l, Defen da nt ’s com pe te nc y to be sen te nc ed , andDefen da nt ’s 6 se nt en ci ng . This he ari ng is cen tra l t o t hi s ap pe al . At t he he ari ng , Defen da ntco m pl ai ne d t ha t Hamm

di d n otpu rs ue Defen da nt ’s cas e ag gr es si ve ly eno ug h. Defen da ntin si st edup on rep res en ta ti on 7 fro m hi s p rev io us lawyer, Jam es . The co urt i nf orm edDefen da ntth atJames was The F ebrua

ry 2009 evaluation util izes the America n Psy chiatric Association’s def inition 5 of “ma linge ring ”: “Ma linge ringis the intentional production of fa lse or grossly exagg era ted phy sical or psycholog ical sy mptoms, m otivated by

external incentives suc h as . . . eva ding criminal prose cution[.] ” Def endant f iled a pro se motion seekingto dismi ss lawyer H amm. Br iefly stated, in the 6 motion Defenda

nt contended that he had r etained James to repr esent him, that he ha d been “medica ted to the point of virtual incompetenc y” at the he aringwher e James sought to withdraw , that the g overnme nt eng ag ed in misconduct, and that Hamm’s servic e as D efe ndant’s lawyer weakened c laims Defe ndant might have ag ainst the g overnme nt and J ames. Hamm said that De fenda

nt called Ha

mm from jail and indicated that Defe ndant wished 7 to repre sent himself. When Hamm went to the jail, thoug h, Def endant r efuse d to meet. 8no lo ng er Defe nd an t’s l awy er. The co urt as ke d Def en da ntif h e wis he d t o rep res en t h im se lf. Defe nd an t re sp on de d t ha t h e d idno t wi sh to pro ceedpro se; Defen da ntin si st edth atJames was hi s re ta in edlawyer. Defen da ntrem ai ne d la rg el y un co op erat iv e an d i ns is te d t ha t Hamm was n otag gr es si ve en ou gh an d t ha t Ja m es was h is tru e la wy er. The co urt n ot edth at“ I ha ve a hi st ory of kno win g [Defe nd an t]. I do kn ow t ha t [De fen da nt ] te nd s t o m is rep res en t t hi ng s, an d I d o kn ow t ha t h e te nd s t o v ary inhi s re pr es en ta ti on s.” Th e co urt fu rth er n ot edth at Defen da ntwas “ an in cred ib ly diff ic ul t cl ie nt .” At t hi s p oi nt , th e co urt d en ie d Defen da nt ’s m ot io n t o d is m is s Ham m as c ou ns el . The co urt t he n turne d t o Def en da nt ’s com

pe te nc y to be sen te nc ed . The co urt as ke d t he pa rti es if a ny evi de nc e ex is te d t o s up pl em en t t he Cen te r’s Feb ru ary 20 09 ev al ua ti on (whi ch ha d fo un d Def en da ntto be co m

pe te nt ). The pa rti es rep orte d tha t n o a dd it io na l ev id en ce ex is te d. Exp li ci tl y cit in g t he Cen te r’s 8 Feb ru ary 20 09 ev al ua ti on , th e Dis tri ctCo urt fo un d Def en da ntto be co m

pe te nt .

Def endant madea re fer ence to additional medical re ports but stated that these r eports 8 wer e stolen. The g overnme nt lawyer ( Redmond) and Ha mm also mentioned other medica l rec ords to which De fenda nt might have been r efe rring . Hamm and Redmond a lso relayed their belief that Defe ndant might be ref ere ncingcompetenc y-re lated medica l reports pre pare d pre- trial for the guilt-phase: year s in the past. Acc ordingto the District Court, in the light of the Cente r’s Fe bruar y 2009 evaluation finding De fenda nt competent, any

guilt-phase re cords would have no bearing on D efe ndant’s compe tency at the 16 Apr il 2009 post-trial hearing . So, the District Court declined to inquire f urther a bout other re cords.

9The Dis tri ctCo urt the n wen t o n wi th sen te nc in g. Th e co urt re co gn iz ed

Defen da nt ’s pro se- fil edob jecti on s t o t he PSI an d o rd ereda br ie f rec es s s o tha t Defen da ntco ul d re vi ew th e PSI wi th Ham m , Defen da nt ’s app oi nt edlawyer. After th e rec es s, Ham

m in fo rm edth e co urt t ha t Def en da ntrefu se d t o s pe akwit h Hamm ab ou t the PSI. The co urt en ga ge d Def

en da ntin a co ll oq uy. Defen da ntin si st edup on ha vi ng James se rv e as hi s l awy er an d a dv an cedall eg at io ns of g ov ern m en t m is co nduc t. St at in g tha t Def en da nt“ cl earl y

do es n’t wan t t o b e rep res en te d b y Mr. Ham m an d [De fen da nt ] do es n’t wan t t o re pr es en t h im se lf e it he r,” the co urt pr ov id edth e p art ie s wi th ou r de ci si on in Uni te d S ta te s v . Garey . Not in g Gar ey ’s 9 di sc us si on of apro cedur e th ro ug h wh ic h t o h an dl e si tu at io ns li ke Defen da nt ’s, th e co urt o rd ereda br ie f rec es s fo r th e p art ie s t o re vi ew Garey. The co urt re co nv en edan d p ro ceed ed-- ci ti ng Garey -- wit h s en te nc in g. Th e co urt ad vi se d Def

en da ntof h is rig ht s an d s ou gh t t o d et erm in e whe th er Defe nd an t wis he d t o wai ve hi s ri gh t t o c ou ns el . Defen da ntrefu se d t o ans wer m an y of t he co urt’s que st io ns bu t re pe at ed ly referen cedhi s d es ire to be rep res en te d b y James. Defen da ntat o ne po in t s to pp edan swe rin g e nt ire ly andjus t s tareddo wn atth e tabl e. 540 F.3d 1253 ( 11th Cir. 2008) (en ba nc). We will discuss Gar ey more. 9 10Alt ho ug h Def en da ntin si st edth athe di d n otwaiv e h is rig htto a la wy er (s pe ci fic al ly, Ja m es ), th e Dis tri ctCo urt co ns tru edDefen da nt ’s act s as a kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry

waiv er o f th e ri gh t t o c ou ns el : “ I fi ndth atth e d efen da nt , th ro ug h hi s ac ti on s, h as kn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly w ai ve d h is rig htto co un se l i n t ha t h e ha s re fu se d t o re pr es en t h im se lf a dm it te dl y , bu t h e h as als o re fu se d t o h av e Mr. Ham m rep res en t h im .” Havi ng fou ndDefen da ntco m pe te nt , th e Dis tri ctCo urt pr oc eed edwit h Def

en da ntrep res en ti ng hi m se lf a t s en te nc in g. Al th ou gh Ham m was no lo ng er Defe nd an t’s co un se l fo r se nt en ci ng , th e co urt al so di d app oi nt Ham m as “ ad vi so ry ” o r st an db y co un se l. Afte r al lo win g Def

en da ntto m ak e arg um en ts , th e co urt ad dr es se d ob jecti on s t o t he PSI. Defen da ntoff eredarg um en ts ab ou t, fo r ex am pl e, why som e en ha nc em en ts sh ou ldno t ap pl y an d wh y a pr io r co nv ic ti on sh ou ldno t b e co un te d. The co urt ca lc ul at edth atth e Sen te nc in g Gu id el in es ran ge wou ldbe 18 8- 23 5 m on th s o f im

pr is on m en t, b uta 12 0- m on th st atut ory m ax im um ap pl ie d; so , th e Gui de li ne s ra ng e was 12 0 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t. The co urt i m po se d asen te nc e of 12 0 m on th s o f im

pr is on m en t, a 3 -y ear t erm of s up erv is edrel eas e, an d a$1 00 sp eci al ass es sm en t fe e (i n a dd it io n t o s pe ci al co nd it io ns ). Defen da ntap pe al s.

11DISCUSS ION

Defen da nt ’s Compete nc y to W ai ve th e Ri gh t t o C ou ns el Defen da ntco nt en ds th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt co m m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r in al lo win g Def

en da ntto waiv e h is rig htto co un se l atsen te nc in g. Br ie fly sta te d, Defen da ntco nt en ds he was i nc om pe te ntto rep res en t h im se lf a ndth atth e Dis tri ct Co urt “ erro ne ou sl y

requi red[Defen da nt ] to pro ceedpro se a t s en te nc in g,” in vi ol at io n o f th e Supr em e Co urt’s d eci si on in Ind ia nav. Edward s. 1 0 Eve n i f we as su m e arg ue nd o -- witho utex pr es sl y de ci di ng -- th ata hi gh er st an da rdm ig htgo ve rnth e is su e o f co m pe te nc e to waiv e co un se l an d p ro ceedpro se at t ria l o r se nt en ci ng (as op po se d t o t he Dus ky st an da rdgo ve rn in g t he is su e o f 1 1 co m pe te nc e to st an d t ria l wi th co un se l), we n eedno t arti cu la te an y pre ci se st an da rdforth e fo rm er; th e rec or d h ere a m pl y supp orts th e d is tri ctco urt’s co nc lu si on (un de r an y

reas on ab le st an da rd ) th atDefen da ntwas c om pe te ntto waiv e co un se l an d p ro ceedto sen te nc in g a s h e d id . This co nc lu si on is esp eci al ly

128 S. Ct . 2379 (2008). 1 0 80 S. Ct . 788 (1960) (per c uriam). 1 1 12tru e in th e li gh t o f th e fac t t ha t Def en da ntdi d n otpre se rv e th is is su e b el ow an d th us ou r rev ie w is forpl ai n e rro r. Defen da nt ’s st at em en ts de m on st rat edDefen da nt ’s abi li ty to u nd ers ta ndan d to co m m un ic at e o bjec ti on s an d a rg um en ts to th e co urt. Fo r ex am pl e, Defen da nt fil edob jecti on s t o t he PSI i n wh ic h h e o ffer edm it ig at in g fa ct or s an d c ha ll en ge d factua l as se rti on s. An d Def en da ntals o c oh eren tl y

arg ue d o bjec ti on s t o the co urt ab ou t wh y

cert ai n e nh an cem en ts di d n otap pl y an d wh y a pr io r co nv ic ti on sh ou ld no t co un t fo r cri m in al hi st ory pu rp os es . Sig ni fic an tl y , th e d is tri ctco urt h adbe fo re ita th or ou gh ps y ch ia tri c ev al ua ti on th atin di cat edth atDefen da ntha d t he ab il it y to co m m un ic at e th ou gh ts ina cl ear a ndco nc is e m an ne r, th athe ha d a n u nd ers ta nd in g of th e co nv ic ti on s an d t he pe na lt ie s h e fac ed , as wel l as a go odkn owl ed ge of l eg al co nc ep ts an d t he ev id en ce ag ai ns t h im , andth atDefen da ntwas m al in ge rin g. Thu s, we ca nn otco nc lu de th atth e d is tri ctco urt co m m it te d re ve rs ib le erro r in de te rm in in g t ha t Def

en da ntwas c om

pe te ntto waiv e co un se l an d t o p ro ceedto se nt en ci ng wit h o nl y

st an db y co un se l. 1 2

Edwar ds does not require a diffe rent re sult. W hile Edwards say s many things a bout 1 2 competenc y , Edwar ds decide s a diffe rent que stion focused on the r ight of a def endant to repr esent himself: whe ther a court may

lawfully require a criminal defenda nt who -- a lthough competent to stand trial - - suffe rs from se veremental illness to procee d with counsel, despite the defe ndant’s re quest for se lf-represe ntation. Edwards, 128 S. Ct. at 2385-88. No holdingin Edwar ds controls this case. 13Kno win g, In te ll ig en t, an d Vo lu nt ary W ai ve r of Co un se l

Whe th er a d efen da nt ’s waiv er o f co un se l was kn owi ng an d v ol un ta ry is a m ix edqu es ti on of l aw an d fa ctth atwe rev ie w de n ov o. Gar ey , 54 0 F .3dat 1 26 8. On d ire ctap pe al , th e g ov ern m en t b ears th e b ur de n o f pr ov in g ava li d wai ve r. Id. A waiv er o f th e ri gh t t o c ou ns el m us t b e kno win g a ndvo lu nt ary, an d t he va li di ty of a waiv er d ep en ds up on th e p art ic ul ar fac ts an d c irc um st an ces of acas e. Id . at 12 66 . Bro ad ly spe ak in g, al l cr im in al de fen da nt s h av e th e ri gh t t o c ou ns el . But de fen da nt s d o n otha ve anun qu al ifi edrig htto co un se l o f th ei r ch oi ce; an d abs en t go odcau se to di sm is s a c ou rt- ap po in te d l awy er, anin di ge ntde fen da ntm us t ac cep t th e ap po in te d l awy er o r pr oc eedpro se. Id . at 1 26 3- 64 . A def en da ntwho reject s h is co urt-app oi nt edlawyer andals o re fu se s t o pr oc eedpro se “ m ay

waiv e h is rig htto co un se l b y hi s u nc oo pe rat iv e co nduc t, s o lo ng as h is de ci si on is m ad e wit h kno wled ge of h is op ti on s an d t he co ns eque nc es of hi s ch oi ce.” Id . at 1 26 6. “ [W] he n c on fro nt edwit h ade fen da ntwho ha s vo lu nt ari ly w ai ve d c ou ns el by his co nduc t an d wh o re fu se s t o p ro vi de cle ar an swe rs to qu es ti on s re ga rd in g h is Six th Am en dm en t ri gh ts , itis en ou gh forth e co urt t o i nf

orm th e d efen da ntun am

bi gu ou sl y of t he pe na lt ie s h e fac es if c on vi ct ed 14an d t o p ro vi de hi m wit h age ne ral sen se of t he ch al le ng es he is li ke ly to co nf ro nt as a pr o s e li ti ga nt .” Id . at 1 26 7. 1 3 W e co nc lu de th at , inth is cas e, a co m pe te ntDefen da ntkn owi ng ly and vo lu nt ari ly w ai ve d h is rig htto co un se l. Defe nd an t re fu se d t o a ll ow a c ou rtap po in te d l awy er t o re pr es en t h im , refu se d t o p ro ceedpro se, a ndrefu se d t o en ga ge th e Dis tri ctCo urt i n am ean in gf ul di sc us si on ab ou t h is rig htto co un se l. In st ead , Defen da ntrep eat ed ly ins is te d upo n re pr es en ta ti on by lawy er J am es . But Ja m es was e nt ire ly outof t he cas e: Jam es alr ead y ha d a sk edforan d re cei ve d pe rm is si on to wit hd raw. Afte r fi nd in g Def

en da ntco m

pe te ntba se d o n b ot h t he Defen da nt ’s own act s an d o n ath or ou gh ps y ch ia tri c ev al ua ti on of De fen da nt , th e Dis tri ctCo urt ci te d o ur de ci si on in Garey an d i nf orm edDefen da nt-- in de ta il -- o f th e p os si bl e p en al ti es he face d a ndth e d an ge rs of s el f-re pr es en ta ti on . The Di st ric t Co urt al so in fo rm ed Defen da ntth atlawyer Ham m was a va il ab le to serve as c ou ns el , an d Def en da nt 1 4

We have identifie d sever al fa ctors that ar e important in deter mining whe ther a

waiver is 1 3 knowingand voluntary . United States v. Kimball, 291 F.3d 726, 730-31 ( 11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). On the fa cts of this case , the Kimball fac tors support the findingand conc lusion that Def endant’ s waiver

was knowingand voluntary . After findinga knowingand voluntary waiver of counse l, the District Court appointed 1 4 Hamm to serve as standby counsel. 15was warn edof t he co ns eque nc es of De fen da nt ’s refu sa l t o c oo pe rat e wit h t he

co urt. Defe nd an t t he n, n ev erthe le ss , refu se d t o c oo pe rat e wit h the co urt. Und er Gare y

an d i n t he li gh t o f th e Kim ba ll fact or s, t he Dis tri ctCo urt pr op erl y fou ndan d c on cl ud edth at , th ro ug h Def en da nt ’s un co op erat iv e co nduc t, Defen da ntkn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly w ai ve d h is rig htto co un se l. “ A di al og ue can no t b e fo rced [.]” Garey , 54 0 F .3dat 1 26 6. By his act s, Defe nd an t v al id ly waiv edhi s ri gh t t o c ou ns el at s en te nc in g. Due Pro ces s Apa rt f ro m th e p ro -s e-re pr es en ta ti on is su e, Defen da ntco nt en ds th athi s supp os edm en ta l i nc om

pe te nc e ren de redhi s s en te nc in g “ fu nd am en ta ll y un fai r,” i n vi ol at io n o f th e Fi fth Am en dm en t’s g ua ran te e o f du e p ro ces s. W e rev ie w th e sc op e o f co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s d e n ov o. Un it edSta te s v . Can te ll an o, 4 30 F.3d11 42 , 11 44 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (p er cu ria m ). Whe re a de fen da nt-- as he re -- m ak es no ob jecti on be fo re t he di st ric t co urt, we re vi ew on ly fo r pl ai n e rro r. Uni te d S ta te s v . Olan o, 1 13 S. Ct. 1 77 0, 1 77 6- 79 (19 93 ). Due pro ces s re qu ire s t ha t cr im in al de fen da nt s b e aff or de d t he op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t fa vo rab le ev id en ce. Uni te d S ta te s v . Hurn , 36 8 F .3d13 59 , 13 62 (11 th Cir . 1620 04 ). And“ [t]he rig ht s t o c on fro ntan d c ro ss -ex am in e wit ne ss es an d t o c al l

wit ne ss es in on e’s own be ha lf h av e lo ng be en reco gn iz edas e ss en ti al to du e pr oc es s.” C ha m

be rs v. Mi ss is si pp i, 9 3 S . Ct. 1 03 8, 1 04 5 (1 97 3) . Defen da ntco nt en ds th athi s s up po se d i nc om pe te nc y de pr iv edhi m

of the op po rtu ni ty to p res en t fu ll y hi s ca se . W e rejectDefen da nt ’s du e-p ro ces s- rel at ed co nt en ti on s: Defen da ntwas c om pe te ntto waiv e h is rig htto co un se l, an d Defen da ntkn owi ng ly andvo lu nt ari ly w ai ve d h is rig htto co un se l. The reco rd refl ect s t ha t t he Dis tri ctCo urt p ro vi de d Def en da ntth e o pp ortu ni ty to o ffer rel ev an t ev id en ce. No - - no (pl ai n o r ot he rwis e) -- e rro r ex is ts on th is reco rd . Defen da nt ’s du e-p ro ces s- rel at edcla im s fa il . In effe ct iv e Ass is ta nc e o f Tria l Co un se l

Whe th er a cr im in al de fen da nt ’s cou ns el was i ne ffec ti ve rep res en ts a m ix ed qu es ti on of l aw an d fa ctth atwe rev ie w de n ov o. Un it edSta te s v . Ben de r, 29 0 F.3 d 1 27 9, 1 28 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) . “ W e wil l n otge ne ral ly con si de r cl ai m s o f in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l ra is edondi rectap pe al wher e th e d is tri ctco urt di d n oten te rta in th e cl ai m no r de ve lo p afactua l re co rd .” Id .

17W e fi ndth is reco rdto be in su ffi ci en tl y de ve lo pe d fo r us to be ab le to co ns id er Defe nd an t’s i ne ffec ti ve ass is ta nc e o f co un se l cl ai m s o n t hi s d ire ctap pe al . Fo r ex am pl e, th e rec or d re fle ct s n o e vi de nc e ab ou t wh et he r Defen da nt ’s cou ns el ha d re as on to qu es ti on Defen da nt ’s com pe te nc e to st an d t ria l o n t he qu es ti on of Defen da nt ’s gu il t. We decl in e to ad dr es s Def en da nt ’s in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l cl ai m s i n t hi s d ire ctap pe al . Is su es Rai se d On ly in Def en da nt ’s Pro Se Bri ef

Inad di ti on to hi s l awy er-f il edbri ef wi th th is Co urt, Defe nd an t al so rai se d so m e d is ti nc t cl ai m s i n apro se- br ie f fi le d e arl ie r in th is Co urt. Each of Defen da nt ’s pro se- cl ai m s i s wi th ou t m eri t. Defen da ntco nt en ds th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt erredby notgra nt in g Defen da nt ’s cha ng e-o f-v en ue reque st . W e rev ie w den ia l o f a ch an ge -o f-v enue reque ston ly for ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Un it edSta te s v . Cam pa , 45 9 F .3d11 21 , 11 43 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (en banc ). Defen da ntdi d n ot(an d c an no t) c arry the “ ex tre m el y he av y ” b ur de n t ha t we ex pl ic at edin Cam pa . See i d. Th e Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n d en y in g Def en da nt ’s cha ng e-o f-v enue m ot io n.

18Defen da ntco nt en ds als o t ha t t he Dis tri ctCo urt erredby notsu a sp on te

or de rin g aco m

pe te nc y he ari ng be fo re tria l o r atlea stbe fo re v erd ic t. The law requi res a co m

pe te nc y he ari ng on ly whe n i nf

orm at io n e xi st s ra is in g a“bo nafid e do ub t” ab ou t a d efen da nt ’s com pe te nc y . See Watts v. Si ng le ta ry , 87 F.3d12 82 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6) . Here, in th e li gh t o f al l t he reco rdev id en ce, the Dis tri ctCo urt co m m it te d n o e rro r by no t s uasp on te ord eri ng a co m pe te nc y he ari ng be fo re t ria l orat l eas t b efo re v erd ic t. Defen da nt ’s rem ai ni ng all eg at io ns in hi s p ro se- br ie f to th is Co urt l arg el y in vo lv e al le ga ti on s o f la wy er i ne ffec ti ve ne ss an d o f go ve rn m en t an d c ou rt m is co nduc t. As d is cu ss edab ov e, th is reco rdis in su ffi ci en tl y de ve lo pe d fo r us to ad dr es s i ne ffec ti ve -as si st an ce-o f-co un se l ar gu m en ts in th is di rectap pe al . And Defen da nt ’s arg um en ts ab ou t g ov ern m en t an d c ou rt m is co nduc t ar e u ns up po rte d by reco rdev id en ce an d d em on st rat e n o re ve rs ib le erro r. CONCLUSION

Inth e li gh t o f th e fac ts of t hi s ca se , we AFFIRM Defen da nt ’s con vi ct io n an d s en te nc e. AFFIR MED. 19