### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 10003

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f - A pp el l ee v. J AMES MI CHA EL L ONG D efen d a n t - A p p ell a n t

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore G A R W O O D , W IE N E R , an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. GA RWOOD, C i rcui tJu dg e: T h e g o v e r n m e n t c h a r g e d J a m e s M ic h a e l L o n gw ith fo u rco u n ts o f w ilfu lly fai l i n g t o f

i l e i n com e t ax ret u rns, contr ary t o 26 U
. S
. C
. § 7203
. A f t er a t ri alon t h e m eri t s, t h e j u ry f ou n d L on g gu i l t y of

al lf ou r c ou n t s. Lon g, represented on
a p p ea lby the F ed era lP u b l i c D efen d er’ s O ff i ce, a p p ea l s on tw o grou n d s. F i rst, L on g co n ten d s th a t t h e d i stri ct cou r t w r o n g full y d en i ed h i m h i s ri gh t t o r e p r e s e n t h i m s e lf. S ee F a re ttav. Ca lif

o rn ia , 9 5 S . C t. 2 5 2 5 , 2 5 3 2 (1 9 7 5 ). S econd , he contend s t h at t h e t ri alcourterr ed in den yi n g h i s pro sem oti on to d is m is s b a s e d o n th e S p e e d yT r ia l A c t. S ee1 8 U
. S. C. § 31 61 ( c ) ( 1)
. W e a f f i r m t he d i s t r i c tc o u r tf

o rt h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 19, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 10003

2 BA CK GRO UND O n A pri l1 , 200 8, t h e U n i t ed S t ates A t t orney fi l ed i n U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri c t Cour t f

o r t he N o r t he r n D i s t r i c t o f Tex as , Lubb o c k D i vi s i o n, a bi l l of in fo r m a tio n ch a r g in gL o n g , a lle g e d lya re s id e n t o f P la in v i e w , T e x a s (w h ic h is
w ith in th a t d iv is io n ), w ith fo u rco u n ts o f v io la tin g 2 6 U .S .C
. § 7 2 0 3 b yw ilfu lly fai l i ng t o f

i l e hi s fede r al i nco m e t ax r et urns f orea c h of

t he r es pec t i ve c al endar year s 2001 (c ount1) , 2002 ( c ount2) , 2003 (c ount3) , and 2004 ( c ount4) , al t hough h e h a d g r o s s in c o m e in e x c e s s o f a p p r o x im a te ly$ 6 5 ,0 0 0 in 2 0 0 1 , $ 8 0 ,0 0 0 in 200 2, an d $1 88, 000 i n 200 3 an d 20 04 ea ch. O n t h e sam e day , a sum m on s i ssued
o u t o f th e L u b b o c k D iv is io n r e q u ir in gL o n gt o a p p e a rb e fo r e t h e c o u r t o n A p r il 23 , 2 00 8 i n r e fe r e nc e t o t he i nf o r m at i o n. On A pr i l3 0, 2 00 8, t he g o vernm e nt f i l ed in th e L ubboc k D i vi si on a m ot i on t o i ss ue an ar r es tw ar r antf orLong, al l egi n g t h at he ha d n ever a pp eared, a n d t h at t h e sum m on s had not been served
on h i m a l th ou gh “[ n ]um ero u s a ttem p ts h a ve be en m a d e to l oca te the de fen d a n t, al lt o no avai l
. ” T h e sam e da y M agis t rat e Ju dg e K oen i g of t h e L u bbock D i vi si on gr ant ed t he m ot i on and t he ar r es tw ar r a nt w as i ss ued. O n M ay 22, 2008, ap pa r e nt l y i n t he Fo r tW o r t h Di vi si on of th e N o r t he r n Di s t r i c to f Te xa s , Lo ng w as ar r e s t e d p ur s ua ntt o t he war r a nta nd , a f t e rb e i ngb r o ug htb e f o r e p r et r i al servi ces i n F ortW ort h , he w as broug h tbef ore M agis t rat e J u dg e B l ei lof t h e F ort W o r t h Di vi s i o n f

o rhi s i ni t i ala ppe ar anc e on t he A pr i l1, 2 00 8 bi l lo f i nf o r m at i o n. A l so pr es entw as A ss i st antF ede r alP ubl i c D ef endantFl eur y t o r epr es entLong. A t t h i s h e a r in g , L o n g , a m o n go th e rth in g s , p u r p o r te d to fir e F le u r y , h is publ i c def

enderat t or ney. Judge B l eilt hen or al l y announce d t hatFl eur y w as

“ a p p o in t e d to r e p r e s e n tM r . L o n g , u n d e r s t a n d in g , M r . F le u r y , t h a th e d o e s n ’t
w i sh t o have yo ur r epr es ent at i on, I w i l lc ons i dert hi s as s t and- by represen t ati on . ” Jud ge B l ei lf u rt h er s t ated t o F l eu ry “ w h i l e you ’ re i n F ort W o r th , y o u ’ r e [s ic ] r e s p o n s ib ilitie s a s s ta n d -b yc o u n s e l a r e t o a s s is t M r . L o n gif he as ks f

oryo ur a ss i st ance i n any w ay. ” H ow eve r , Judge B l ei l ’ s M ay 22, 2008 Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 10003

Ju dgeBleil’s May 22, 20 08 writtenorder that Lon g be “detained pendingfurthercourt 1 proc ee din g s”r ecit es , in ter a li a , th at “[t]he defen d an t[ Lo ng] refu sed totalk withprobation off icers ab out his background, e mployment, address or anypertine nt informatio n. . . . The defen dantal so was biz arreinhis co nduct, s ee m edirrational, and expressed a l ack of re co gnitio nof a nyauthorityoverhim” 3 w ri tten ord er a p p oin ti n g “th e F ed era lP u b l i c D efen d er’ s O ff i ce of th i s D i stri ct”
as coun self

or L on g i n t h e case m ak es no m en t i on of bei n g st an d-by coun selor t h e l i ke. A t t he M a y 2 2 he a r i ng J ud g e Bl e i l a l s o o r a l l y o r d e r e d t ha t Lo ng “ be detai n ed p en di n g f

u rt h er c ou rtproceedi n gs f i n di n g t h at y o u a re a ri sk of
n on ap pea ran ce and w i t h ou tan y i n f orm ati on concerni n g you du e t o you r l ack of
c o o p e r a tio n w ith th e p r o b a tio n o ffic e r ” a n d th a t “ y o u ’ r e a d a n g e rto o th e r s .” 1 Fi nal l y, Judge B l ei l , att he M ay 22 hear i ng, or al l y di r ec t ed Long be

“ t r ans po r t e d t o t he Lubb o c k D i vi s i o n o f t he N o r t he r n Di s t r i c to f Te xa s . ” Lo ng w a s t r a n s fe r r e d to L u b b o c k , a n d o n M a y2 3 , 2 0 0 8 , A s s is ta n t F e d e r a l P u b lic D efen der K i m e- G oodw i n entered her w ri t t en app e aran ce i n t h e L u bbock D i vi si on i n t hi s c as e a s r epr es ent i ng Long. Long ’ s n ex t appe ar ance w as on June 2 5, 2008, be f or e M agi st r at e J udge K o e n igin th e L u b b o c k D iv is io n . A g a in , L o n gp u r p o r te d to fir e h is p u b lic def enderat t or ney. I n re spo nse , Judge K oe ni g s eta Far e t t a h eari n g f or A u gu st 2 5 th , 2 0 0 8 to d e te r m in e w h e th e r L o n gk n o w in g lya n d in te llig e n tly w a iv e d h is ri gh t to counse l
. At t he A ugust25 he ar i ng, Long r ef use d t o c oo per at e w i th Jud ge K o e ni g. Fo re xa m pl e , Lo ng r e f us e d t o a ns w e ra ny que s t i o ns a nd
r eques t ed a si de ba rc onfer enc e w i t h t he j udge. W hen t he j udge t ol d Long t hat h e need ed t o st ate h i s i ssues on t h e recor d, or t al k to a pret ri alser vi ces of f i cer t o deter m i n e w h et h er he coul d be rel eased on bon d or hi s ow n rec ogn i zan ce or c o ul d r e t ai n c o uns e lo rc o ul d p r o c e e d pro se , L on g re fuse d an d req u ested to postpon e t h e h eari n g. T h e j u dg e postpo n e d the F a re ttahea ri n g f

or t w o day s. A tt h e A u gu st27 h eari n g, L on g aga i n ref u sed t o cooperate. Jud ge K oen i g on ce Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 10003

4 m ore post pon ed the h eari n g t o Sep t em ber 3. A gain, L on g ref u sed t o cooperat e. A t t h e S ep tem b er 3 h e a ri n g J u d ge K oe n i g h a d the bil lof i n form a ti on rea d to L o n g , a n d o r d e r e d th a t a n o t g u ilty p le a b e e n te r e d fo rh im
. Ju dg e K oen i g ref

erred L on g t o D i st ri ct Ju dg e C u m m i n gs f or t h e F a re tta h eari n g. A ta pret ri alhea ri n g on O ct ober 6, 200 8, bef ore t ri alcom m en ced l ater t h at day, L on g ap p e a red w i t h A ssi st an tF ederalP u bl i c D efen da n tK i m eG o o dwi n, w ho inform e d t he c o ur tt hats he ha d r e que s t e d t he pr e t r i alhe ar i ng becau se Lon g h ad sai d “ h e f i red ou r of

f i ce” an d “ essenti al l y sai d that he w i shed t o r epr es ent hi m se l f ” and t hat she bel i eve d t hat ac c or di ngl y he sh ou l d “be
a d v ise d of F

a re tta w ar ni ngs by t hi s c our t
. ” Th er eaf t er , att he r eques tof Long, at t or ney K i m e- G oo dw i n m ove d f ora c ont i nuan c e o f t he t r i alw hi c h Judge Cum m i ngs de ni e d. J udg e Cum m i ngs a c c o r di ngl y t he n a s ke d t he de fe nda nt
w het herhe w i she d t o r epr es enthi m se l f
. Long r es ponded, “ N o, s i r . ” Long w as t h ereaf t er t ri ed an d conv i ct ed on O ct ober 6, 200 8. A tsentenci n g on D ecem ber 30, 200 8, L on g’ s at t orney K i m e- G oodw i n i n form ed the court t h at Lon g w i shed to fir e h e r . L o n ga tt e m p te d to s p e a k u p , b u t th e d is tr ic t ju d g e to ld h im to w a it h i s turn
. W he n t he j udg e a l l o w e d Lo ng t o s pe ak , Lo ng s t at e d o nl y, “ Fort he
reco rd , Y ou r H on or, yo u r offer of con tract i s a ccep ted for va l u e a n d retu rn ed w i th
c ons i der at i on f

ordi sc harge , s et t l em ent , and c l os ure. ” J udge Cu m m i ngs se nt enc ed Long t o t hi r t y- se ven m ont hs i n pri s o n (c o ns e c ut iv e s e nt e nc e s o f t wel ve m o nt hs o n e ac h o f

c o unt s 1, 2 and 3 and o ne m o nt h on c o unt4) a nd c o nc ur r e nt
o ne y e art e r m s o f

s upe r vi s e d r e l e as e o n e ac h c o unt
. N o f i ne w as i m po s e d;
r e s t i t ut i o n t o t he U ni t e d St at e s o f $ 93 , 48 4. 69 w as o r de r e d. A N A L Y S IS I . R i ght t o Sel f

- R epr es ent at i on Ad e fe n d a n t h a s a rig h t t o re p r e s e n t h im s e lf a t t r ia l. F a re tta , 95 S. C t
. at 253 2. A n im perm i ssibl e den i alof sel f

- representat i on cann otbe ha rm l ess. Uni t e d St at e s v . Cano , 519 F
. 3d 512 , 516 ( 5th C i r. 200 8)
. Th e defen da n tm u st Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 10003

5 kno w i ngl y andi nt e l l i ge nt l y f o r e go hi s r i ghtt o c o uns e l , a nd m us tc l e ar l y and
une quivo c al l y r e ques tt o pr o c e e d pro se . I d. I f t he r i ghtt o c ounse li s t o b e w ai ved, t he t r i al c our tm ustc onducta F a re ttahea r i ng, ca ut i o ni ng t he de fe nda nt ab o utt he da nge r s o f

se l f

- r e pr e s e nt at i o n and e s t ab l i s hi ng, o n t he r e c o r d, t hatt he d e fe n d a n t m a k e s a k n o w in ga n d v o lu n ta r ych o ic e . I d. N e ve r t he l e s s , t he de fe nda ntm ayw aive hi s r i ghtt o s e l f

- r e pr e s e nt at i o n t hr o ugh s ubs e que nt
c o n d u c t in d ic a t i n ga n a b a n d o n m e n t o f th e re q u e s t. I d. The r e i s no c o n s tit u tio n a l rig h t t o h y b r id re p r e s e n ta tio n s w h e r e b yth e d e fe n d a n t a n d h is
a tt o r n e ya c t a s co -c o u n s e l. I d. A
. LongD i d No tCl e ar l y andUne qui v o c al l

y Req ue s tt o Pr o c e e d Pr o Se Un i t ed S t ate s v. Can o gi ves an exam pl e of a cl ear an d u n equ i vocalw ai ver of t he r i ghtt o c o uns e l
. I n Cano , th e defen d a n t a sk ed th e cou rt to d is m is s h is
c o uns e la nd a l l o w hi m t o r e pr e s e nthi m s e l f, s t at i ng t hathe w ant e d t o “ i nvo ke hi s Cons t i t ut i o nalRi ghtt o Se l f

- Repr e s e nt at i o n a s t o the m at t e r s b e f o r e t he
cou rt. ” I

d. The c o ur tf

o und t hatr e que s tt o c l e ar l y andune quivo c al l y as s e r tt he
r ig h t t o s e lf-r e p r e s e n ta tio n . I d. Like Cano , Long i ndi c at ed t o M agi st r at e J udge K oe ni g t hathe i s “ t he at t or ney i n fac t ” w hen t he j udge as ked hi m att he June 25, 2008 hea r i ng w ho he w ant ed t o r epl ac e t he publ i c def ender
. At t he June 25 he ar i n g, L on g f

i l e d a do c um e ntpur po r t i ng t o f i r e t he pub l i c de fe nde ra nd gr ant i ng hi m se l f

t he pow erof

at t or ney. M or eo ver , t he m agi st r at e j udge und er st oo d t hat Long s oughtt o r epr es enthi m se l f be c ause s he or der ed a F a re tta h e a r in g i n r e s p o n s e to L o n g ’s s t a t e m e n t s . C o m p o u n d e d o n th is a r e L o n g ’s severalst atem en t s t h at i f “ an y[ on e] ” t h ou gh tt h ey represented L on g, “ t h ey w ere f i red. ” U n l i ke Cano , h o w e v e r , L o n gn e v e rcle a r lyo rex p re s s lya s s e r te d e ith e rh is
r i ghtt o r e pr e s e nthi m s e l f o rt hathe w ant e d t o pr o c e e d pro se . M an y cases sug gestt h at s om et h i n g m ore t h an j u stf i ri n g on e’ s at t orney i s r e qui r e d b e f

o r e o ne cl e ar l y anduneq ui vo c al l y r e que s t s t o pr o c e e d pro se . E
. g. , Mo re n o v. Este lle , 717 F
. 2d 171 , 174 –75 ( 5th C i r. 198 3)
. “ [ T ] h e ri gh t t o coun sel Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 10003

6 is in fo r c e u n til w aive d , [ an d] t h e ri gh tt o self-re p re sen t ati on does not at t ach
u n til asser t ed
. ” I

d. at174 ( quot i ng Bro w n v . W ai nw r ight , 6 6 5 F
. 2 d 6 0 7 , 6 1 0 ( 5 th C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) (e n b a n c )) (e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l). Mo r e no f o und t hatt he de fe nda nt di d n otw ai ve h i s r i gh tt o coun selbeca u se he tol d the court h e w an t ed to f i re c o uns e lw i t ho ute xp l i c i t l y i nf o r m i ng t he c o ur t t hathe w i s he d t o pr o c e e d pro se . I d. at174 –7 5. N e xt , i n Burt o n v . Col l i ns , 9 3 7 F .2d 1 3 1 , 1 3 3

– 3 4 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 1 ), t h i s c ou rtf

ou n d n o c lea r and un equ i vocalw avierw h ere a defen da n ti n f orm ed t h e j udg e he w ant e d t o f i r e hi s a t t o r ne y anda s ke d, “ M ayI r e pr e s e ntm ysel f?” B u rt on , 937 F
. 2d at 132
. Th e courti n t erpret ed B u rt on ’ s qu est i on as an i n qu i ry in to th e p o s s ib le a lte r n a tiv e s a v a ila b le
. I d. a t 1 3 4
. F in a lly , Un i t ed S t ate s v. Iba rrai s a n unp ubl i s he d o pi ni o n o f t hi s c o ur tt he fac t s of w hi c h ar e so m ew hat si m i l arto thos e i n t he i nst antc as e. N o. 05- 50934, 2007 W L 807038, at*2 ( 5t h C i r . 2007)
. There , I bar r a’ s at t or ney t ol d t he t r i al
cou rt Iba rra “m a y p refer to rep rese n t him self
. ” I d. at*1
. Af

t e rI ba r r a s t at e d t he t hathe w o ul d no tc o o pe r at e e ve n i f a ppo i nt e d a no t he ra t t o r ne y, t he f o l l o w i ng excha n ge t ook p l ace:

“ [ D efen se C ou n sel] : W ou l d th e C o u rtentert ai n a m ot i on t o al l ow M r. I barra to proceed pro se? T H E C O U R T : N o. D on ' tgi ve h i m an y i dea s. [ D efen se C ou n sel] : W el l , h e al ready h as t h e i dea , Y ou r H on or. I w i sh I c o u l d t a k e c r e d i tf

o rg i v i n gh i mTH E C O U RT : H e ' s a l r e ad y c o nvi ct e d hi m s e l f [ i n a l e t t e rt o t he cou rt] , qu i te f

ra n k l y. A n yth i n g h e say s i s go i n g t o b e-i s n ot go i n g to m ak e a ny di f

fe r e nc e . I m ayf

i nd as a m at t e ro f

l aw he' s no ta c i t i z e n. P e r io d
... . TH E C O U R T: June t he 20t h. Y ou w i l l r epr es ent hi m . A nd do n' tgive h i m an y i dea s abou tpro se. I t ' s bad en ou gh ha vi n g a f oolf or a cl i en t. IB A R R A : S i r ,- Y o u rH o n o rca n I s a ya w o r d ?
. . . I a m 3 0ye a rs old a n dI d o n 't w a n t n o b o dy to re p r e s e n t m e . So I w antyo u j ustt o g i ve Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 10003

7 y o u r finaldeci si on or deci si on s because I don ' tw an tt o w aste m y t i m e. T H E C O U R T : W h at do you m e a n you w an ta deci si on ? A re you pl eadi ng gui l t y? IB A R R A : I d o n ' t w a n t h im
. I d on 'tneed n o at t orneys . I a lr e a d yte ll y o u th a t[. ]” I d. at *2 ( em phasi s i n or i gi nal)
. Ci t i ng B u rt on , the pa n elfoun d t h at there w ere com p eti n g re a son a b l e interp reta tio n s a tt r ib u ta b le to th e d efen d a n t’ s i n q u i ryi n to
w h e th e rh e co u ld re p r e s e n t h im s e lf. I d. at*3 ( c i t i ng B u rt on , 9 3 7 F .2d a t 1 3 4 ). T h e p a n e l n o te d t h a t th e d e fe n d a n t’s s ta te m e n ts a p p e a r e d to h a v e e x p r e s s e d h is
co m p la in t of h is d e te n tion a n d t ria l ra th e r th a n a re q u e st to th e rig h t of s e lfr e p r e s e n ta tio n . I

d. a t* 4
. B e c a u s e I b a r r a “ fa i l e d t o s u p p o r tc o u n s e l ’ s t wo s ta te m e n ts o n th e is s u e o f s e l f-r e p r e s e n ta tio n ,” th e p a n e l a ls o fo u n d th a t h is
co u n se l’ s s ta te m e n ts d id n o t a m o u n t to a clea r a n d u n e q u ivo ca l req u e st fo r s e lfr e p r e s e n ta tio n . I

d. H er e, Long s ee m s t o have m ade a r eques tt o f i r e hi s appoi nt ed at t or ney, b u t n ot a c l earand unequi voc alr eques tt o r epr es enthi m se l f
. I n hi s i ni t i al
a p p e a r a n c e , L o n gp u r p o r t e d t o f i r e a n y o n e t h a tt h o u g h tt h e yr e p r e s e n t e d h i m. A t t h e e n d o f th a t h e a r i n g , a fte rth e m a g is tr a te ju d g e a p p o in te d a p u b lic defender, L on g sai d “[ t ] h i s gentl em an i s h e re by f i red. ” T h e nex thea ri n g t ook pl ace on Ju n e 25, 200 8. A tt h i s heari n g, L on g aga i n f i red t h e pu bl i c defen der. L o n gto ld th e ju d g e h e fo u n d a re p l a c e m e n t. W h ile th e re c o r d is u n c le a r , it
s e e m s tha ta tt hi s po i nt , Lo ng ga ve t he j udg e s o m e f o r m o f v i s ualc ue t hathe h i m sel f pl an n ed on repl aci n g t h e pu bl i c defen d e r. M u l t i pl e t i m es Lon g st ated t h at “ [ h e i s] t h e att orney i n fact ” t h at he w an t ed to repl ace t h e pu bl i c defen der. B ec ause of

t hi s, t he m agi st r at e j udge bel i eve d t he s i t uat i on w ar r ant ed a F a re tta hear i ng. A s a r es ul tof

Long’ s at t em pt s t o f i r e hi s at t or ney, t he m agi st r at e j udge
m ade m ul t i pl e a t t em pt s t o have a F a re ttahea r i ng. Lo ng t hw ar t e d e ac h a t t e m pt Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 10003

8 u n t i lt h e d ay of

tri al
. L on g an d t h e federalpu bl i c defen der nex tapp eared befor e Ju dg e C u m m i n gs on O ct ober 6 , 2 008
. T h e fi rstis sue t h e federalpu bl i c defen der pu tbef ore t h e courtw as t h e F a re ttahe ar i n g andLo ng’ s r e que s tt o r e pr e s e nt hi m se l f
. I n re spo nse , Judge C um m i ngs addre ss ed Long: “T H E C O U R T : A ll rig h t. M r . L o n g , d o y o u w is h t o r e p r e s e n t y o u r s e lf i n t h i s c ase? T H E D E F E N D A N T : E xcuse m e, Y ou r H on or. N o, si r. T H E C O U R T : A ll rig h t. T h a n k y o u v e r ym u c h . Y o u m a yb e s e a te d .” G i v e n h i s u n c o o p e r a t i v e a n d n o n - r e s p o n s iv e n a t u r e , w e b e li e v e th a tL o n g ’s pri o rc o m m e nt s a re un cl ear an d equ i vocal
. Like Ibarra , L on g’ s ea rl i er co m m en ts
m aym o r e a pt l y be c har ac t e r i z e d as a g e ne r alr e be l l i o n a ga i ns tt he s ys t e m t r yi ng h im , w h e n th e co m m e n ts a r e ta k e n in th e fu ll co n te x t o f th e re c o r d
. S ee Ibarra , 200 7 W L 807 038 , at *4. Lon g m ad e m u l t i pl e ref erences t o how he d oes not
r e c o gni z e t he t r i alc o ur t
. Bey o nd j us thi s o w n a t t o r ne y, Lo ng w i s he d t o f i r e t he govern m en t , t h e courtsec u ri t y offi cers , t h e m arsha l s, an d the j u dg e f rom r epr es ent i ng hi m . I n fac t , Long r epe at edl y as se r t ed t hro ughout t he pr oc ee di ngs t hatt he Rep ubl i c o f

T e xa s nev e rpr o pe r l y e nt e r e d t he uni o n, a nd t he r e f o r e , t he U n i t ed S t ates F ederalC ou rt s h ad no p ow er over h i m . B ef ore t ri al , L on g w an t ed t o f i r e hi s at t or ney. O n t he day of t r i al , he e xpr es sl y de ni e d t o t h e di st ri ctcourt th a t h e w a n te d to re p r e s e n t h im s e lf. R ig h t b e fo r e s e n te n c in g , h e o n c e a g a in
w i shed t o f

i re hi s at t orney. A s B u rt on not ed, “ [ w ] her e a f und am ent al
c ons t i t ut i onalr i ght , s uch as t he r i ghtt o c ounse l , i s c onc er ned, c our t s i ndu l ge e v e r yre a s o n a b le p r e s u m p tio n a g a in s t w a iv e r . B u rt on , 9 3 7 F .2 d a t 1 3 3 ; seealso B rown v. W

ai nw r ight , 66 5 F. 2d 60 7, 61 0 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 82 ) ( “ The r i gh t of
s e l f

- r e p r e s e n t a t i o n e n t a i l s a wa i v e r o f t h e r i g h t t o c o u n s e l , s i n c e a de fe nda nt
o bv i o us l y c anno te nj o y bo t h ri ght s a tt r i al
. ” )
. H e r e , Lo ng di d no tc l e ar l y and
u n e q u iv o c a ll yb o th w a ive h is rig h t to co u n se l an d a ss e rt h is rig h t to se lfr e p r e s e n ta tio n . Se e i d. Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 10003

See also U

nited States v. Myers , 50 3 F .3d 6 76, 681 ( 8t h Ci r. 2 007) (affirming th e 2 conviction of adefe ndant whomadenumero us frivolou s an d re petitivefilin gs , used fil es provided byth e governme nt in discoveryto clog jail toil ets, and threw feces intoth e j ail’s mail slot); Diaz v. Sec’

y fo r the Dep’t of C

orr. , 402 F.3d 11 36, 11 45 (11 th Cir . 2005) (“Dia z sought to frustrate the completionof his trial b y repeatedlych anging his min d regardin g se lf -r ep re se ntationat th e guilt ph a seof th e trial. ”) ; United States v. Keiser , 31 9 F . App’x45 7, 4 5 8

– 5 9( 9 thC ir
. 2 0 0 8). 9 B. Long W

aive dHi s R igh tt o S el f

- R epres entat i on E v e n if L o n gh a d clea rlya n d u n e q u ivo ca ll ya ss e rte d h is rig h t to se lfr e p r e s e n ta tio n , th a t r ig h t m a yb e w a iv e d b yh is a c tio n s . F a re ttar ec ogni ze d t hat t he t ri al j u dg e m ayt e r m i nat e s e l f

- r e pr e s e nt at i o n b y a de fe nda ntw ho d e lib e r a te lye n g a g e s in s e r iou s an do b s tr u c tio n is t m is c o n d u c t. F a re tta , 95 S
. C t. at 2541 & n. 46. A f

t er Far e t t a, at l east t w o ci rcui t s hav e hel d that obst ructi on i st b e h a v io rm a yw a iv e th e rig h t t o s e lf-r e p r e s e n ta tio n . E
. g. , Un it ed St at e s v. B rock , 1 5 9 F .3 d 1 0 7 7 , 1 0 7 9 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ). F o re x a m p le , th e S e v e n th C ir c u it 2 h el d t h at t h e di srupti ve defenda n t m ay l ose h i s r i gh tt o pro se s t at us i n B rock
. 1 5 9 F .3 d a t 1 0 7 9
. L ik e L o n g , M r . B r o c k f ile d m o tio n s a s s e r tin gth a t n e ith e rh is
a tt o r n e yn o r a n y o th e r a tt o r n e y , w a s a u th o r iz e d to a c t on h is b e h a lf. I d. at1078. Th e di st r i c t c our t at t em pt ed t o c onducta F a re ttah e a r in g . I

d. B r o c k re p e a te d ly dem anded a “ B i l lof

Part i c u l ar s” and c hal l enged t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s aut hor i t y. I d. B r o c k r e fu s e d to a n s w e r th e c o u r t’s q u e s tio n s o r c o o p e r a te in a n yw a y . I d. T h e tri a lj u d ge ap p oin te d B rock stan d -bycou n sel an d directed the m a gistrate ju d g e to in fo r m B r o c k o f th e p itfa lls o f s e lf-r e p r e s e n ta tio n . I d. at 107 9. B ef

ore t he m ag i s t r at e j udg e , Br o c k r e pe at e d hi s de m and s a nd r e f us e d t o a ns w e rany q u e s tio n s . I

d. A f t er hol di n g B rock i n contem pt m u l t i pl e t i m es, t h e t ri alcourt deci ded t o revoke h i s pro ses ta tu s . I d. N otun l i ke B rock , Long’ s c onduct i n t he i nst ant c as e s ugges t ed di sr upt i ve a n d ob stru cti on i st be h a vior. A ft er t h e secon d ti m e th e d efen d a n t attem p ted to f i r e t he publ i c def

ender , M agi st r at e Judge K oe ni g ent er ed an or derfora F a re tta h eari n g f

or A u gu st25th, 200 8. Th e F a re ttahe ar i ng be gan as sche dul e d, b ut Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 10003

10 Longr e f

us e d t o a ns w e rt he j udg e ’ s que s t i o ns , i ns t e ad m e r e l y r e pl yi ng w i t h t he
s am e no n s e n s i c a ls t a t e m e n t“ y o u ro f fe ro f c o n t r a c ti s a c c e p t e d f o rv a l u e a nd
r e t u r n e d wi t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r d i s c h a r g e , s e t t l e m e n t a n d c l o s u r e . ” Af t e rt he
cou rt w a s u n d ersta n d a b l y fru strate d , L on g a sk ed f or a si d eb a r con feren ce w i th t h e j u dg e. The j udg e r e f us e d a nd r e qui r e d a l lc o m m uni c at i o n b e m ad e o n t he
recor d, bu tof

fered t o l etL on g speak t o an i n di vi du alf rom pre- t ri alser vi ces. L o n gd e c l i n e d t o d o s o , b u ta s k e d i f t h e c o u r tc o u l d r e s u me t h e h e a r i ngi n t wo da ys. Th e courtexpl ai n ed to h i m exact l y w h at t h e hea rin g w o u ld c over w h en th e yre c o n v e n e d
. A s sc hedul ed, t he c our tr ec onvene d t w o day s l at eron Au gu st 2 7, 2008. Lo n g o n c e a g a i n s t a t e d t h a t h e wa n t e d t o f i r e h i s c o u n s e l
. I n r e s p o ns e , t he
m ag i s t r at e j udg e unde r s t o o d t hat , butst at e d Longw o ul d nee d t o co o pe r at e a nd al l o w t he pr e - t r i als e r vi c e s off i c e rt o q ue s t i o n hi m s o t he c o ur tm ayg e tt he i n f orm ati on i tneed ed f or t h e Far e t t a he ar i n g. Ins t e ad o f c o o pe r at i ng, Lo ng m ad e t h e i den t i calabove qu ot ed n on sensi calst atem en tabou taccept i n g an of fer of con tract from th e j u d ge . A ft er rep ea ted l y w a rn i n g L on g n ot to “carry on w i th t h ese r i di cul ou s s t atem en t s t h at carry n o m ean i n g i n t h i s c ou rtor an y court of l aw , ” t he m agi st r at e j udge e nded t he hear i ng. The m ag i s t r at e j udg e he l d t he ne xthe ar i ng o n Se pt e m be r3 , 2 00 8. Aga i n, L on g bega n t h i s heari n g by stat i n g t h at h e w ou l d l i ke t o f i re t h e pu bl i c defen der. F rom t h at point on w ards, L on g respond ed to every qu est i on Ju dg e K oen i g asked by si m pl y r epe at i ng t he abov e q uot ed nons ens i c als t at em entabo ut ac c ept i ng an of fer of contr actf

rom t h e j u dg e. J u d g e K oen i g deci ded t o rel ease L on g on per so nalr ec ogni zanc e, an d l ett he di st r i c tc our tj udge c onducta F a re ttahear i ng. E ac h t i m e a m agi st r at e j udge had at t em pt ed t o c onducta Far e t t a he ar i ng, Lo ng w as e xt r e m e l y unc o o pe r at i ve . Lo ng’ s a c t i o ns l e d t o t he co ur tpus hi ng ba c k t he hear i ngs un ti l O ctob er6. O n O c t obe r6, Long de ni e d w ant i ng t o r e pr e s e nt Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 10003

Long ar gu es th at this court should giveweight to the Magistrat e Judge Bleil’s oral 3 pronounc ementth at the pub li cd efender was stand-b y coun sel, not the writtenorder appointin g the public defen der as counsel. Like th e oral pronounc ement , th e minut e e ntryfor 11 h i m sel f
. L i ke B rock , th e s e fa c t s te n d to s u g g e s t t h a t L o n g ’ s b e h a v io ro f its e lf
m ayw e l lha ve r e s ul t e d i n t he w aive ro f hi s r i ghtt o s e l f

- r e pr e s e nt at i o n. L o n ga lso a rg u e s , a lter n a tiv e ly, th a t if h e w a ive d h is rig h t to se lfr epr es ent at i on, he r eas se r t ed i tat t he sent enc i ng st age. C our t s have hel d t hat t h e pro se req u est m a y be u n ti m ely a n d , th ere fore, w a i ve d
. E
. g. , W oo d v. Q uar t e r m an , 491 F
. 3d 196 , 202 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) ( “ W ood di d not m ove t o proceed pro se u n t i la f

t e rt h e j u r yh a d a l r e a d yr e t u r n e d a g u i l t yv e r d i c ta g a i n s th i m, i m m edi atel y bef

ore t h e sentenc i ng pha s e of hi s t ri al , an d the t ri alcourtt h eref ore h a d th e d is c r e tio n to d e n yth e m o tio n .”); Uni t e d St at e s v . Ede l m ann , 458 F. 3d 7 9 1 , 8 0 8

– 0 9 ( 8 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (r e q u e s t m a d e fo u rd a y s b e fo r e tr ia l); How ze v. R oe , 92 F
. A pp ’ x 515 , 516 ( 9th C i r. 200 4) (u n pu bl i shed ) (requ estm ad e t w o day s bef ore t r i al)
. Longr e l i e s o n Uni t e d S t at e s v. Cano , i n w h i ch t h i s court rem an ded f or r e- se nt enc i ng w hen t he di st r i c tcour tfai l ed co ndu c ta F a re ttahe ar i ng af

t e rt he def endantr eques t ed t o r epr es enthi m se l f ei ght ee n days be f

or e s ent enc i ng. Cano , 5 1 9 F .3 d a t 5 1 5 , 5 1 7
. U n l i ke Cano , L o ng r e que s t e d t o pr o c e e d pro se t he day o f t he s e nt e nc i ng hear i ng. G i ven L ong’ s pr evi ous di sr upt i ve and un c oo per at i ve c onduct , t he t r i al court m ay hav e seen t h i s as an ot h er del ay t act i c. T h rough ou t t ri al , t h e di st ri ct
c o ur tw as c o ncer n ed wi t h Lo ng’ s “ Repub l i c o f Te xa s ‘ ps yc ho ba bb l e , ’” w hi c h,
a ccord i n g to th e d i stri ct cou rt, w a s i nt ended t o intim i d a te the cou rt an d f ru strate t h e adm i n i st rat i on of j u st i ce. Like W

ood , w e f

i nd t hatLong’ s as se r t i on at
s e n te n c in gw a s u n tim e ly
. Longa l s o a r gue s , a l t e r nat i ve l y, t hathe r e pr e s e nt e d hi m s e l f a l la l o ng, a nd
c o uns e lw as a ppo i nt e d f r o m t he b e gi nni ng byJ udg e Bl e i li n Fo r tW o r t h as stan d -bycou n sel w i th ou t a ny F a re tta hear i ng. Long a r gues t hatw hi l e t he t r i al 3 Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 10003

the initialapp earance reads, “Order appointing feder alp ub li c defender a s stan dbycounsel because Deft. refu sal of Representation.” However, the formalorder that w as al so entered that day appoints the public defender as Long’s counselw ithout mention of “ stand-b y” or other qualif icat ion. Even if wewer e t o give w eight to theoral pr onounc em ent, the magis tra te judge clarifie d or ally that the public defen der was stan d-bycounsel , “[ w ] h ile[h e’ s] inFort Worth .” (empha sis supplied). And, o n May23 , 20 08, Assistant Federal PublicD efender Kime-Goodwin entered her appearance in the Lubbo ck Divisionas coun sel f or Lon g without anyin dication of stand-byor other limitedstatus. Moreover, o n Sept em be r5, 20 08, Judge C ummings reappointed the federal public defender a s counsel . This was al most a mo nthbefore Lon g file d hismotionto di smi ss b a se d onth e Sp ee dyTri al Act
. Long cent ers his argument that he did not waive his ri ght toself-representation on 4 alin e from Cano : “I n United States v. Cano , this C ourtin dicated thatitwoul d ‘indulge every reaso nab le presumption a gain s t waiver’ of th e ri ght to self-represe ntatio n .” Brief of Defen dant

App ellantat 31 (quoting Cano , 5 1 9 F .3 d at 5 1 7) (e mp h a si s supp li ed). Can o actu allyr ea ds : “Where afun damental constitutional right, such as the right to counsel , is conc erne d, courts indulge every reaso nab le presumption again st waiver.” Cano , 51 9 F .3d at 5 17 (empha sis supp li ed). 12 c o u r t m a y n o t h a v e c o n d u c te d a fo r m a l F a re ttahea ri n g, he w as m ad e aw are of t he danger s and di sa dvant ages of s el f

- r epr es ent at i on. A f t erM agi st r at e J udge K oe ni g s eta F

a re ttahea ri n g, L on g requ est e d to d el ay i tf or t w o day s. W h en gr ant i ng t hi s r eques t , t he m agi st r at e j udge i nf or m ed Long of

w hatc oul d be exp ect ed att h e Far e t t a h e a r in g . L o n gc h a r a c te r iz e s t h is p r e v ie w a s b e in gfu lly b r ie fe d o n th e d a n g e r s o f s e lf-r e p r e s e n ta tio n . H o w e v e r , F a re ttacl earl y requ i res m o r e t han t he d efe nda ntr e c e i ve d. As s um i ng a de fe nda ntc l e ar l y and
u n equ i vocal l y requ est s t o represen t h im sel f, t h e t ri alcourtst i l lm u stm ak e a fi ndi ng t hat t he def endant know i ngl y and i nt el l i gent l y w ai ved hi s r i gh t t o c o u n s e l a n d a s s e r ts h is rig h t t o s e lf-r e p r e s e n ta tio n . Uni t e d St at e s v . Cano , 519 F .3d 5 1 2 , 5 1 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). B u t even assum i n g L on g w as bri ef ed p roperl y u n der F

a re ttaan d h ad been
r e pr e s e nt i ng hi m s e l f, Lo ng w aived hi s r i ghtt o s e l f

- r e pr e s e nt at i o n. Lo ng 4 exp ress l y t o l d t he t r i alj udg e b e f o r e t r i alt hathe di d n o t w antt o r e pr e s e nt h im s e lf. T h e p u b lic d e fe n d e ra c te d a s c o u n s e l fo rt h e r e m a in d e ro f th e t r ia l. T h is
c o ur t ’ s o pi ni o n i n L afev re v. Ca in i s on po i n t: Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 10003

13 “ [A ] defen da n tcan w ai ve h i s Far e t t a r ig h ts , e i t h e r b ye x p r e s s ly r eques t i ng s t and b y c ounse l ' s par t i c i pat i on o n a m at t erorby ac qui e s c i ng i n ce r t ai n t yp e s of pa r t i c i pa t i o n b y c o uns e l , e ve n i f t he defenda n t i ns i s t s t hat he i s no t w aivi n g h i s Fa re tta r i ght s. . . . [ O ] nce a pro se de fen da nti nvi t e s o ra gr e e s t o a ny subs t a n t i alpar t i c i pat i on by c ounse l , s ubse quentappear ance s by coun selm u stb e p resum ed t o b e w i t h the defenda n t ' s acquies cence, a tl e a s tu n t i lt h e d e fe n d a n te x p r e s s l ya n d u n a mb i g u o u s l yr e n e ws hi s r eques tt hats t andby c ounse lbe s i l enc ed.
. . . [ S] tandby c o u n s e l' s p a r tic ip a tio n [m u s t] b e ‘ o v e rth e d e fe n d a n t's o b je c tio n ’in order t o erode t h e defen da n t ' s Far e t t a r ig h ts .” L efe v re v. Ca in , 5 8 6 F .3d 3 4 9 , 3 5 5

– 5 6 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (in te rn a l citat ion s o m itted ). I n L ef evre , t hi s c our tf

ound w ai veraf

t ert he d efen d a n t ac qui es c ed t o s t and- by
cou n sel pa rti ci p a ti on , bu t ne ve r ob j ected or p rov i d ed a re a son for h i s fai l u re to
o b je c t t o th a t h e lp
. I d. a t 3 5 6 , 3 5 7
. W e bel i eve t h at Lon g’ s obst ructi on i stbeh avior , coupled w ith L o n g, j u st be f o r e t r i alb e ga n, ha vi ng t o l d t he di s t r i c tc o ur tt hathe di d n otw i s h t o r e pr e s e nt h i m sel f, w arran tsi m i l ar reasoni n g an d a si m i l ar w ai ver res u l there. I I . Sp eed y T ri al A ct Long a l so appeal s t he di st r i c t c our t ’ s fai l ure t o addre ss t hi s O c t ober 3, 2008 pro sem ot i on bas ed on th e S p eedy Tri alA c t
. At t he t i m e, Long w as represented by c ou n sel , so t h e t ri al court properl y st ruck h i s pro sem o tio n . S ee Uni t e d St at es v. W

hi t e l aw , 580 F. 3d 256, 259 ( 5t h C i r . 2009)
. Conseque nt l y, L on g’ s fai l u re t o properl y “ m ove f or di sm i ssal pri or t o t ri al or en t ry of a pl ea of g u ilty o rn o lo co n te n d e r e s h a ll co n s t i t u t e a w a iv e ro f th e rig h t t o d is m is s a l”
u n d e r th e S p e e d yT ria l A ct. 18 U .S .C
. § 3 1 6 2 (a )(2). CO NC L US I ON W e a ffir m L o n g ’ s co n v ic tio n a n d s e n te n c e . F ir s t, L o n gw a s n o t d e n ie d h is
c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ghtt o re pr e s e nthi m s e l f be c aus e he di d nott i m e l y, c l e ar l y, a nd
u n e q u iv o c a llya s s e r t it
. A n ya tt e m p ts to a s s e r t t h a t r ig h t w e r e w a iv e d b yh is
ow n obst ructi on i stbeh aviorcom bin e d w i t h hi s nega t i ve an sw er t o t h e di st ri ct Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/19/2010N o. 09- 10003

14 cou rt’ s i n q u i ryw h eth er h e d esired to rep rese n t h i m self
. L on g w a i ve d h i s ri gh ts unde rt he Spe e dyTr i alAc tb e c aus e he fai l e d t o pr o pe r l y putt he i s s ue b e f o r e t he tr ia l co u r t. AF FI RM ED Case: 09-10003 Document: 00511030730 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/19/2010