# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 6- 26 98

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Jo hn Lee Nor ris

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __

App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t

fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Jan ua ry

12 , 20 17

Fil ed : J un e 2 3, 2 01 7
[Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re WOL LMAN, MURPHY, an d M ELLOY, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Jo hn Lee Nor ris pl ead ed gu il ty to on e co un t of co ns pi racy to co m m it m ai l frau d

an d wire frau d, in vi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 13 4 9

, a n d o n e co un t of m ai l frau d, invi ol at io n of 18 U.S.C. § 13 41

. The di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced Nor ris t o 10 8 m on th s’ 1

im pr is on m en t an d so m e $1 m il li on in res ti tu ti on

. Afte r th e se nt en ce was va cat ed on

ap pe al

, th e di st ric t co ur t res en te nc ed Nor ris

, im po si ng th e sa m e se nt en ce an d

es se nt ia ll y th e sa m e a mo u n t in res ti tu ti on

. Nor ris ap pe al s, arg ui ng th at th e di st ric t

co ur t de pr iv ed hi m of hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to co un se l at th e res en te nc in g

he ari ng by fai li ng to en su re th at hi s waiv er of th e rig ht to co un se l at th e res en te nc in g

he ari ng was v al id . W e aff irm.

I. Back gr ou nd

Afte r Nor ris ’s in it ia l ap pe aran ce, th e m ag is tra te jud ge ap p oi nt ed co un se l to

rep res en t hi m

, in cl ud in g as si st an t fed eral de fen de r Ani ta Bu rn s, who was to rep res en t

Nor ris at tri al

. Dur in g a Mar ch 11 , 2 01 4, pr et ria l c o n f e r e n ce, Nor ris in di cat ed th at

he wis he d to pr oc eed pr o se

. The m ag is tra te jud ge warn ed hi m th at do in g so m ig ht

di sa dv an ta ge hi m :

[B]efo re th e Co ur t can al lo w y ou to go p r o se we’re go in g to ha ve to

mak e a l o t of in qu iry, an d I’m go in g to wan t y ou to th in k ab ou t i t

. Bec au se if y ou go pr o se
, th e Co ur t can ’t te ll y ou wha t to do

. And if y ou
d o n’t ha ve an y le ga l tra in in g, if y ou aren ’t fam il ia r wit h th e Fed eral

Ru le s o f Ev i d en ce, th e Fed eral Ru le s of Cri m in al Pro ced ur e, y ou are

go in g to be at a di st in ct di sa dv an ta ge whe n y ou go to tri al

. The fact th at

y ou rep res en t y ou rs el f is n’t go in g to ke ep th e Dis tri ct Ju dg e who tri es

t h e cas e fro m en fo rci ng th os e pa rti cu la r ru le s. So

, ev en if y ou h a v e

ev id en ce th at m ig ht be rel ev an t an d ad m is si bl e, if y ou do n’t kn ow un de r
th e fed eral ru le s ho w to pr es en t it and ho w to ge t it in

, it ’s no t go in g to

co m e in in y ou r cas e. And I can jus t as s u r e yo u t h i s[ ,] th at if y ou do

rep res en t yo u r s e l f an d, y ou kn ow, do n’t fo ll ow th e ru le s, y ou ’re no t

go in g to ha ve a ve ry go od sh ot if th ere is an ad ve rs e res ul t an d y ou wan t

to ta ke an ap pe al

. Bec au se if y ou ha ve n’t pr es erv ed y ou r e v i d en ce or

The Hon or ab le Bri an C. W im es

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1

an d Eas te rn Dis tri ct s o f Mi ss ou ri.

-2

-pr es en te d it co rrec tl y
, th en y ou ’re al so go in g to ha ve di ffi cu lt y wit h an y

ki nd of ap pe al

, whe th er or no t y ou ’re rep res en t e d b y co un se l at th at

ti m e.

. . . .

So

, I’m go in g to wan t to m ak e ex te ns iv e in qu iry an d t o

, y ou kn ow,
real ly enco ur ag e y ou to th in k a bo ut it

.

A f te r Nor ris rep eat ed th at he wan te d to pr oc eed pr o se
, th e m ag is tra te ju d g e

in qu ire d in to hi s lev el of e du cat io n, i nc lu di ng whet he r he ha d s tu di ed law; whet he r

he ha d pr ev io us ly rep res en te d hi m se lf in a cri m in al m at te r; whe th er he un de rs to od th e

pe na lt ie s h e f

a ced if co nv ic te d; whe th er he was fam il ia r wit h th e Uni te d St at es

Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (Gu id el in es ); whe th er he was fam il ia r wit h th e Fed eral Ru le s

of Evi de nc e an d Cri m in al Pro ced ur e; whe th er he un de rs to od th at he wou ld be bo un d

by th os e ru le s at tri al an d wou ld ha ve to m ak e pr op er ob jecti on s to pr es erv e is su es fo r

ap pe al ; an d whe th er he un de rs to od th at th e ru le s w o ul d no t be rel ax ed fo r hi m an d

th at th e co ur t co ul d no t of fer hi m le ga l ad vi ce. The m ag is tra te jud ge ad vi se d Nor ris

th at pr oc eed in g pr o se wou ld pu t h im at a “ si gn ifi can t di sa dv an ta ge ” an d wou ld be

“ ve ry un wis e” be cau se he la ck ed a la wy er’s tra in in g a nd kn owl ed ge of cri m in al

pr oc e d u r e

. Afte r Nor ris in di cat ed th at he un de rs to od th es e warn in gs an d th at hi s

ch oi ce to pr oc eed pr o se was vo lu nt ary, th e m ag is tra te jud ge al lo wed hi m to pr oc eed

pr o s e , wit h B ur ns ser vi ng as s ta nd by cou ns el

.

At a M ay 28 , 20 14 , hea rin g b efo re t he di st ric t cou rt, Norri s pl ead ed gu il ty as

de sc rib ed ab ov e. Befo re acce pt in g hi s pl ea, th e co ur t co nf irmed th at N or ris

un de rs to od hi s rig ht to co un se l, refe rri ng to t h e mag i st rat e jud ge ’s e arl ie r warn in g.

Nor ris ex pl ai ne d h is ch oi ce t o p ro ceed pr o s e :

[W] he n I lo ok a t i t we ha ve th e fed eral go ve rn m en t th at ha s th e

at to rn ey s th at rep res en t us

, whi le th e fed eral go ve rn m en t is act ua ll y

pe rs ecu ti ng [s ic ] us at th e sa m e ti m e. And I do n’t se e ex act ly ho w th at

-3

-is fai r.

. . . My th in g th at I lo ok ed at was if th e si tu at io n to ok pl ace on

on e si de

, ev en ch an gi ng ou t rep res en ta ti on or ot he rwis e, t h e sa m e
fo rm at I di d n ot be li ev e wou ld m ak e a d iff eren ce.

Pu rs ua nt to hi s pl ea ag reem en t, Nor ris waiv ed hi s rig ht to ap pe al hi s se nt en ce ex cep t

on cl ai m s of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce of co un se l, pr os ecu to ria l m is co nd uc t, or an il le ga l

se nt en ce.

Bu rn s repr es en te d Nor ris on hi s fir st ap pe al

, du rin g whi ch Nor ris arg ue d th at

th e go ve rn m en t ha d br each ed th e pl ea ag reem en t b y s u g g es ti ng th at an up ward

d e p a r tu re fro m th e Gui de li ne s ran ge “ wou ld be ve ry ap pr op ria te ” an d op po si n g a n

of fen se -le v e l r e d uc ti on fo r acce pt an ce of res po ns ib il it y

. The go ve rn m en t di d no t

co nc ed e th at it ha d b r e a c h e d th e ag reem en t, bu t no ne th el es s m ov ed to va cat e th e

se nt en ce an d rem an d fo r res en te nc in g to cu re “ an y br each of th e pl ea ag reem en t th at

oc cu rred .” Thi s co ur t g ran te d t he go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n.

Pri or to res en te nc in g, Nor ris fil ed a pr o se m ot io n req ue st in g th e ap po in tm en t

of co un se l. At th e res en te nc in g he ari ng

, Nor ris cl ari fie d th at he wan te d th e co ur t to

ap po in t an at to rn ey ot he r th an Bu rn s to rep res e n t h i m. He st at ed th at Bu rn s was

“ co m pr om is ed ” an d ha d a “ du al ag en da ,” ag ai n su gg es ti ng th at an at to rn ey who was

pa id by th e fed eral go ve rn m en t, an d who ha d ta k e n an oa th to up ho ld th e fed eral

Co ns ti tu ti on up on reg is tr a t i o n w it h th e ba r as so ci at io n, co ul d no t ad eq ua te ly

rep res en t hi m

. Nor ris ag reed wit h th e co ur t’s ch arac te riz at io n of hi s arg um en t as

, “ it

do es n’t m at te r wh o wou ld be ap po in te d as co un se l,

. . . it is st ack ed ag ai ns t [h im ]”

be cau se co un se l wou ld be “ pa id by th e ve ry pe op le th at are pr os ecu ti ng [h im ]. ” The

co ur t de ni ed th e m ot io n, no ti ng th at Nor ris un de rs to od “ th e di sa dv an ta ge s th at oc cu r

whe n on e rep res en ts th em se lf.” The co ur t rem in de d Nor r i s o f so m e of th e da ng ers

of pro ceed in g pr o s e :

You were tol d of y ou r rig ht an d what y ou can do by Ju dg e Hay s. Th at

if y ou rep res en t y ou rs el f, we ha ve a s a yi n g, y ou ha ve a fo ol fo r an

-4

-at to rn ey

. You do n’t kn ow pr oc ed ur es

. At th e ti m e y ou di dn ’t kn ow th e

ru le s of ev id en ce o r

. . . p r o ced ur e as it rel at ed to th e tri al or tri al

st rat eg y or ru le s of co ur t. Tho se are th e th in gs th at [d is ad va nt ag e y ou ].

Not wit hs ta nd in g t ha t, y ou ch os e to go pro se.

Nor ris pro ceed ed pr o s e an d was res en te nc ed as s et for th ab ov e.

II. Dis cu ss io n

The Si xt h Am en dm en t pr ov id es a cri m in al de fen da nt bo th th e rig ht to co un se l

an d th e rig ht to se lf- rep res en ta ti on

. Fare tt a v. Cal ifo rn ia

, 42 2 U.S. 80 6, 80 7 (1 97 5)

.

“ The Si xt h Am en dm en t pr ot ect s a de fen da nt ’s rig ht to co un se l at al l cri ti cal st ag es in

th e cri m in al jus ti ce pro ces s.” Fi or it o v. Uni te d Stat es

, 82 1 F.3 d 99 9, 10 03 (8 th Ci r.

20 16 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d) (q uo ti ng Mai ne v. Mo ul to n, 47 4 U.S. 15 9,

17 0 (1 98 5) ), pe t. fo r cert

. fil ed

, (U.S. Dec. 8, 20 16 ) (No

. 16 -8 54 5)

. “ If th e de fen da nt

waiv es th e rig ht to co un se l, th e waiv er m us t be vo lu nt ary, in te ll ig en t, an d kn owi ng .”

Uni te d St at es v. Arm st ro ng

, 55 4 F.3 d 11 59

, 11 65 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). “ Thi s st an da rd is

m et i f th e tri al co ur t sp eci fic al ly in fo rm ed th e de fen da nt of th e da ng ers an d

di sa dv an ta ge s of sel f-re pr es en ta ti on

, or if t he en ti re reco rd ev id en ces th e de fen da nt

kn ew an d un de rs to od th e di sa dv an ta ge s.” Id

. “ W he n an al y zi ng th e en ti re reco rd fo r

a va li d waiv er, w e lo ok to ‘the ba ck gr ou nd

, ex pe rie nc e, an d con du ct of th e accu se d

. . . [in cl ud in g] th e de fen da nt ’s pa st co nt act s wit h th e cri m in al jus ti ce syste m an d hi s

pe rfo rm an ce at th e pr oc eed in g at whi ch he rep res en te d hi m se lf.’” Id

. (al te rat io ns in

Arm st ro ng ) (q uo ti ng Ferg us on v. Bru to n, 2 1 7 F

. 3 d 9 8 3, 98 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 00 ) (p er

cu ria m )). “ W e rev ie w de no vo a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to al lo w a de fen da nt to

pr oc eed pro se.” Uni te d S ta te s v . Mil le r, 72 8 F .3d 76 8, 7 73 (8t h C ir. 2 01 3)

. 2

The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at ou r rev ie w i s fo r pl ai n erro r be cau se Nor ris di d 2

no t ob ject to th e de ni al of hi s m ot io n fo r ap po in tm en t of co un se l. Nor ris arg ue s th at pl ai n erro r rev ie w sh ou ld no t ap pl y

. Bec au se w e wou ld up ho ld th e jud gm en t ev en

un de r de no vo rev ie w, we nee d n ot de ci de th is qu es ti on

.

-5

-Nor ris arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t de pr iv ed hi m of hi s rig ht to co un se l be cau se

it di d no t co nd uc t a ren ewed Fare tt a in qu iry du rin g th e res en te nc in g he ari ng

. He do es

no t ch al le ng e th e su ffi ci en cy of th e in it ia l Fare tt a w a r n i ng du rin g th e pr et ria l

co nf eren ce, bu t arg ue s th at a ne w in qu iry was r e q u i r ed in li gh t of ch an ge d

ci rcu m st an ces —n am el y
, th at Nor ris ha d be en rep res en te d by co un se l on ap pe al an d

th at he r e q u e s t e d ne w co un se l pr io r to res en te nc in g. See Uni te d St at es v. Han tz is

,
62 5 F.3 d 57 5, 58 0- 81 (9 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ A pr op erl y co nd uc te d Fare tt a co ll oq uy ne ed

no t be ren ewed in su bs eq ue n t p ro ceed in gs un le ss in te rv en in g ev en ts su bs ta nt ia ll y

ch an ge th e ci rcu m st an ces ex is ti ng at t he ti m e o f th e in it ia l co ll oq uy.”).

W e co nc lu d e t h a t Nor ris vo lu nt ari ly waiv ed hi s rig ht to co un se l at hi s

r e s e n te nc in g whe n he de ci de d to pr oc eed pr o se aft er th e di st ric t co ur t de n i e d h i s

req ue st fo r an at to rn ey no t pa id by th e fed eral go ve rn m en t an d po ss ib ly no t be lo ng in g

to an y ba r as so ci at io n. See Uni te d St at es v. W as hi ng to n, 59 6 F.3 d 92 6, 93 8 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ) (“ [W] hi le th e ‘H ob so n’s ch oi ce’ be twee n pr oc eed in g to tri al wit h an

un pr ep ared co un se l o r no co un se l at all m ay vi ol at e th e ri gh t t o c ou ns el , th ere i s n o

co ns ti tu ti on al di ffi cu lt y whe re th e de fen da nt is pr ov id ed th e real al te rn at iv e of

ch oo si ng be twee n ad eq ua te rep res en ta ti on an d se lf- rep res en ta ti on .” (q uo ti ng Uni te d

St at es v. Lad ou cer, 57 3 F.3 d 62 8, 63 4 (8 th C i r

. 2 0 0 9 ) ) ); se e al so Uni te d St at es v.

Co nk li n, 83 5 F.3 d 80 0, 80 4- 05 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (ci ti ng Un i t e d S t a t e s v. San ch ezGarci a, 68 5 F.3 d 74 5, 75 0- 52 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 )) (h ol di ng t h at de fen da nt ’s refu sa l to

ch oo se be twee n co ur t-a pp oi nt ed co un se l an d se lf- rep res en ta ti on co ns ti tu te d a ch oi ce

to pro ceed pr o s e ).

The di st ric t co ur t ad eq u a t e l y warn ed Nor ris ab ou t th e da ng ers of se lfrep res en ta ti on

, th ereb y en su rin g th at th e waiv er of hi s rig ht to co un se l was kn owi ng

an d in te ll ig en t. The i ni ti al Fare tt a co ll oq uy was th or ou gh . Th e di st ric t co ur t ag ai n

warn ed Nor ris du rin g hi s ch an ge of pl ea he ari ng

. The reaf te r, du rin g th e res en te nc in g

he ari ng

, th e di st ric t co ur t rei te rat ed th at Nor ris ’s la ck of kn owl ed ge of pr oc ed ur al an d

ev id en ti ary ru le s wou ld pl ace hi m at a di sa dv an ta ge if he de ci de d to pr oc eed pr o se

.

-6

-W he n th e co ur t’s warn in g d u r i n g t h e res en te nc in g he ari ng is co ns id ered in li gh t of

th e earl ie r warn in gs gi ve n to Nor ris , i t is cl ear th at Nor ris u n d e r s t o od th at he ha d a
rig ht to co un se l an d th at he wou ld be di sa dv an ta ge d if he pr oc eed ed pr o s e

. S ee

Uni te d St at es v. Van n, 77 6 F.3 d 74 6, 76 4 (1 0t h Ci r. 20 15 ) (h ol di ng th at a br ie f

warn in g ab ou t se lf- rep res en ta ti on pr io r to se nt en ci ng w a s su ffi ci en t in li gh t of a

th or ou gh co ll oq uy pr io r to tri al th ree m on th s earl ie r); Mi ll er, 72 8 F.3 d at 77 3 (h ol di ng

th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t err in no t co nd uc ti ng a th i rd Fare tt a he ari ng ); Uni te d

S ta te s v. McB rid e, 36 2 F.3 d 36 0, 36 6- 68 (6 th Ci r. 20 04 ) (h ol di ng th at th e d i s t r i c t

co ur t co m

m it te d no pl ai n erro r in no t pe rfo rm in g a se co nd c o l l o q u y at se nt en ci ng

whe re de fen da nt waiv ed th e rig ht to co un se l at tri al an d fo rb ad e st an db y co un se l fro m

sp eak in g on hi s be ha lf at se nt en ci ng ). Tha t Nor ris req ue st ed a di ffer en t co un se l an d

th at he ha d be en rep res en te d by co un se l on ap pe al di d no t in di cat e th at he no lo ng er

un de rs to od hi s rig ht to co un s e l a n d th e di sa dv an ta ge s of se lf- rep res en ta ti on

. See

Han tz is

, 62 5 F.3 d at 58 1 (“ The es se n t i a l in qu iry is whe th er ci rcu m st an ces ha ve

su ffi ci en tl y ch an ge d si nc e th e da te of th e F a ret ta in qu iry th at th e de fen da nt can no

lo n g e r b e c on si de red to ha ve kn owi ng ly an d in te ll ig en tl y waiv ed th e rig ht to

co un se l.”)

.

Ci ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Pro ct or

, 16 6 F.3 d 39 6 (1 st Ci r. 19 99 ), Nor ris arg ue s th at

hi s req ue st fo r co un se l “ re-i nt ro du ced do ub t in to th e Si xt h Am en dm en t ca l c u lu s,

ob li ga ti ng fu rth er in qu iry.” App el la nt ’s Br. 22 (q uo ti ng Pro c t o r, 16 6 F.3 d at 40 5)

.
In Pro ct o r

, ho wev er, th e sc op e of th e de fen da nt ’s req ue st fo r co un se l was un cl ear.

Here, th e sc op e of Nor ris ’s r eq ue st fo r th e ap po in tme nt of co un se l was cl ear— ne w

co un se l th at

, at a m in im

um

, wou ld no t be pa id by th e fed eral go ve rn m en t— an d th us

di d n ot req ui re fu rth er i nq ui ry by the di st ric t co ur t.

In li gh t o f Nor ris ’s val id waiv er o f hi s ri gh t t o cou ns el

, we ne ed no t con si de r

whe th er th e pl ea ag reem en t ap pe al waiv er pr oh ib it ed an ap pe al on Si xt h Am en dm en t

gr ou nd s. W e fi nd no m eri t i n t he arg um en ts rai se d i n No rri s’s s up pl em en ta l pr o s e

br ie f.

The jud gm en t i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-7

-