NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 08a0024n .06 Fi led : Jan uar

y 9, 2008 06- 4071 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT
UN ITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lee , v. LARRY LOMAZ, Defendant -A ppel lan t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE NO RTH ER N DI STRIC T OF OH IO

Before: DAUGHT REY, GILMAN, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. The def end ant , LarryLom az, appe als the judgmen t of the district cour t findi ng him g uil ty of cr imi nal co ntempt, se ntenc ing hi m to 3 0 day s’ i ncarcerati on, a nd finin g hi m $5,000

. Lomazco ntends that he is enti tl ed to a ne w se ntenc ing hear ing ( 1) beca u s e h i s S i xt h A me n d me n tr i g h tt o c o u n s e l w a s v i o l a t e d w h e n h e w a s l e ftw i thout re pr esent ati on dur ing w hat h e al leg es w as a c rit ica l sta g e of the proceed ing s a nd ( 2) b e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtc o n s i d e r e d i m p ro p e r e v i d e n c e i n d e t e r m i n i n g h i s s e n t e n c e . W e find no re v ersi ble er ro r in connection w it h the se tw o c lai ms and , t herefore, aff ir m the jud g ment of the dis tr ic t c our t.06-4071

United States v. Lomaz

- 2 -

FACTUA L A ND PROCEDUR A L BACKGROUND
The ev ents g iv ing r is e to thi s a ppeal or ig ina ted i n 1999, w hen t he g ov er nment s ued defendant Lomaz , w ho w as in the busi ness of dist ri buti ng f irew or ks , for unlawful deal ing in dev ic es that w er e banne d or mis branded. The gov er nment charg ed the def endant w it h sel li ng and transpo rt ing co ntraband firew or ks i n i ntersta te c ommerc e i n v iol ati on of the Fede ral Haz ard o u s Subst ance s Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 12 63(a ) and (c) ( the Act). In Janu ary 2000, the d is tr ic t c our

t ent er ed a per manent i nju nct ion ag ain st Lomaz , enj oin ing hi m from deal ing i n banne d and mis branded fire w or ks

. W e aff ir med the jud g ment on appeal

. See United S tates

v. M idwes t F ir ework s M fg. Co. , 248 F .3d 5 63, 5 65 ( 6th C ir . 200 1)

. In Ma y 2 0 03, b ased on th e g ov er nment’ s p eti ti on for a findi ng of cont empt cont ain ing al leg ati ons that Lomazw as in v iol a ti on of the 2000 i nju nct ion , t he par ti es entered i nto a co nsentdec re e tha t s et ou t a spec ific pla n for Lomaz ’s co mpli ance w it h the dis tr ic t c our

t’ s o rd ers. W it hin a fewmonths , how ev er , t he g ov er nment c harg ed th at Lo maz w as v iolating the conse nt decree and ag ain filed a pet ition seeking an order to show cause w hy Lomazsh oul d notbe h eld i n c ontempt. The mag is trate j udg e heard ev id e nce on Octob er 9, 20 03, and Decem ber 1, 2 003 . Prior to the Octo ber 9, 2 003 hea ring, Loma z ’s couns el had w it hdraw n, an d Lomazappeared pro se , represent in g hi msel f in bo th t he Oct ober and the D ecember

hear ing s. H e tes ti fied on his ow n behal f and cross -e x amined
w it ness es. The go vern m e nt w it hdrew the peti ti on w hen Lomazag re ed to modi fy the cons ent d ecree to i ncl ude furt her co ndi ti ons.06-4071

United States v. Lomaz

- 3 - W it hin a y ear

or so , how ev er , t he g ov er nment ag ain al leg ed th at Lo mazhad v iol ated the conse nt de cree by receiving and d istributing f irew orks in violation o f t he Act. I n March 2003, the g ov er nment req uest ed anot her order to show ca use w hy Lomaz shoul d not b e found in cont empt, re sul ti ng i n a w eek- lon g hear ing in Aug ust 2005 before the mag is trate jud g e, at w hic h the d efendant w as re pr esent ed by an a ttor ney , Al ex ander Ju rc z enko. At the c oncl usi on of the hear ing , t he mag is trate j udg e req uest ed propose d findi ng s of factand conclu sions of

law f rom bot h partie s. W ithin a w eek af ter the h earing co nclud ed, howev er, Jurcz enko w as sus pended from the pract ic e of la w in the s tate cour ts of Ohio

. Des pit e the fact th at he co nti nued t o representLomaztemporar il y i n this f ederal cour

t ac ti on and w as g ra nted a tw o- w eek extens ion in w hic h to file propose d findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law , not hing f urthe r was f iled by Jurczenko on his client’s be half . Jurcz enko w as ultim ate ly sus pended from pract ic e i n federa l cour t, inc lud ing represent ati on i n thi s c ase, on Dec ember

27, 2005, a month after the repor t an d r e co m mendati on w as filed by the mag is trate j udg e on Nov ember 28, 2005.
In hi s repor

t, the mag is tr ate j udg e recommended that Lomazbe fin ed $500 and sent enced to one day of i ncarcerati on. Obj ect ion s w er e to be fil ed w it hin ten day s. The g ov er nment timel y

f il ed an obj ect ion ; Lomazdi d not

. Ci ti ng the defendant’ s “ flag ra nt an d
w il lful v iol ati ons” of the d is tr ic t c our t’ s o rd ers, the g ov er nment i nsi ste d tha t “ the p uni shment shoul d be far more s ev er e” than the nomina l penal ty recommended by

the mag is trate jud g e. The g ov er nment urg ed tha t, i n stead, t he defendant be fined $65,000 and inc ar cerated for s ix

months

.06-4071

United States v. Lomaz

- 4 - On J anuar

y 4, 2006, the g ov er n m e n t f ile d a no ti ce in federal co urt, adv is ing the cour t t hat L omazhad dis mis sed Jurcz enko as his att or ney and had req uest ed from t he g ov er nment a copy

of it s o bje cti ons to t he mag is trate j udg e’s repor t and recommendat ion

. Af t e r r e c e ivi n g a co p y o f

t h e go ve rn m e n t ’s o bje c t io n s , L o m a z f il e d a re s p o n s e o n h is o wn behal f, ask ing the dis tr ic t cour t for l eav e to proceed pro se because hi s attor ney had been sus pended from pract ic e i n Ohi o and urg ing the dis tr ic t c our t t o ac ceptthe findi ng s o f the mag is trate j udg e i n the repor t and recommendat ion

. On J une 8, 2006, the dis tr ic t j udg e i ss ued an order and opi nio n adopti ng most of the f indings in the m agistrate judge’s repo rt but de clining to fo llow t h e m a gi s trate judge’s sent encin g recom me nda tion. Inste ad, t he judge f ined L om az $5 ,00 0 and se nte nced him to 30 days’ incarcerat ion. Af ter the def end ant ’s motio n for reconsid eratio n of the sen ten ce w as de nied , he f iled this ap pea l.
DI SC US SION
As an i nit ial matte r, w e note thatthe defendant di d notrais e hi s S ixth A mendment cl aim in the d is tr ic t c our t, ins tead cont endi n g m e re lythatthe dis tr ic t c our t abu sed it s discretion in assessin g a f ine and senten ce in excess of the ma gi s t ra t e ju dge’s re commendat ion

. W e the re fore rev iew the cl aim on appe al for pl ain er ro r onl y . See Uni ted States v. Ma hon , 444 F .3d 5 30, 5 32 ( 6th C ir . 200 6)

. In t his ca se, w e find none.06-4071

United States v. Lomaz

- 5 - Al thoug h the defendant now clai ms that he w as depr iv ed of the ri g ht t o c ounse l by the dis tr ic t cour

t, the re cord ind ic ates that by i nv oki ng hi s c onst it uti onal r ig ht t o represent hims elf, Lo mazac tual ly w aiv ed hi s r ig ht t o c ounse l. See Ki ng v . Bo bby , 433 F .3d 4 83, 4 90 (6 th C ir . 200 6) ( re cog niz ing “ the int ersec ti on of tw o r ig hts : t he Si xth A mendment r ig hts to sel f-r epresent ati on and to an attor ney ” and holdi ng that “ [w]hen a defendant inv okes one, he nec ess ar il y

w aiv es the other”)

. Nor mall y , our next step w oul d be to de ter mine w hether the d efendant’ s w aiv er in thi s cas e w as v olu ntar y and know ing , and therefore v ali d, see id. , or w het her, as h e no w insists, he w as forced into self-represe n t a t io n a gainst his w ill becau se of c ounse l’ s sus pensi on from pract ic e. In thi s cas e, how ev er , that ste p in t he anal y si s i s u nnece ss ar

y , bec ause w e c oncl ude t hat the per iod dur ing w hic h the defendant
w ent u nr epresent ed w as not a c ri ti cal st ag e of the proceed ing s. Inde ed, t he onl y ev ent t hat post -d ated the s uspen si on of c o u nsel w as the a ctu al fili ng of the d is tr ic t c our t’ s o rd er ado pting the m agistrate judge’s f indings and im posin g the se nte nce, which w as the only phase of the p ro ceedi ng s t hen l eft uncompl eted.
T he d efend ant , now repre sent ed b y coun sel o n a ppe al, claims th at th e district cour t’ s fai lure to make a sua sponte in quiry regardin g the def end ant ’s pr o s e sta tus or

to tes t t he v ali dity

of his w aiv er

of couns el cons ti tuted a v iol ati on of the ri g ht t o c ounse l. I n supp ort, he cites United State s v. McD owell , 814 F .2d 2 45 ( 6th Ci r. 1987)

. In t hat c ase, how ev er , w e dec li ned t o adopta per se rule requir ing autom atic rev ersal in the abse nce of a “de liberate a nd search ing i nquiry .” Id. at 248 . Instea d, w e ad opt ed a “nonforma listic app roach to determ ining suf f iciency of

the waiv er f rom th e record as a w hole .” M oreo v er,06-4071

United States v. Lomaz

- 6 - the law in this circuit requires a district court to de term ine w he the r pro se represent ati on is kn ow ing and v olu ntar y onl y if the defendant is re pr esent ing hims elf at a cr it ic al sta g e of the p ro ceedi ng s. See United S tate s v. Tisdale , 952 F .2d 9 34, 9 39 ( 6th C ir . 199 2) ( ci ti ng Kirby v. Illinois , 406 U .S. 682, 690 (1 972) ). A s tag e i s n ot c ri ti cal i f ther e i s o nly “ mini mal risk” tha t coun sel’s abse nce m ight imp air def end ant ’s “rig ht to a fair trial.” United S tates
v. W ade , 388 U .S. 218, 228 ( 1967)

. On ap pea l, the de fend antcomp lains spe cif ically abo ut Jurc ze n co’s failure to f ile propose d findi ng s o f factand conc lus ion s o f law pri or to the magi strate j udg e’s dec is ion

. W ithou t regard to w het her the f iling of propo sed f indings of

f act an d con clusions o f law in a c ri minal co ntempt proceed ing re pr esent s a cr it ic al sta g e, it is cl ear from thi s re cord tha t coun sel’s failure to f ile cann ot be said to ha v e v iolate d h is c lient’s rig ht to coun sel, as a ma tter of plain error, beca use th ere is no allegation on ap pea l that th e ma gistrate judge’s findi ng s of fact and conc lus ion s of l aw w er e inc or re ct in any respec t. Li kew is e, t he c ur re nt com plaintconce rning the de fend ant ’s inabilityt o f ile o bjectio ns to th e ma gistrate judge’s re por t and recommendat ion – du e to his l ack of re pr esent ati on dur ing the 10- day per iod followi ng its relea se – can notbe con sidered “cr itical” in this particular case, beca use it does not appear

f ro m the re cord tha t t here w er e obj ect ion s t hat s houl d hav e been made at t he ti me. I ndeed, the d efendant embraced the ma gistrate j udg e’s se ntenc ing re commendat ion , w hic h, as i t t ur ned out , w as cl ear ly fav orabl e to him.06-4071

United States v. Lomaz

- 7 - T he o nly oth er “cri tical stage” argumen t raised on app eal con cerns the district court’s decision to i mp ose a sent ence tha t w as “a sig nif icant increa se” abo v e the sente nce re commended by

the mag is trate judg e. But, as the defendant c onced es on appe al, that phase of the l it ig ati on w as onl y a “ cr it ic al ‘p a p e r’ st a ge,” g iv en th e fact that no furt her li ti g ati on w as poss ibl e at that poi nt in the proceed ing s. There w as, pla inl y , nothi ng to be don e buta w ait the d ecision of t he district co urt. T hat“waiting period ” can hardly be said to c onst it ute a c ri ti cal st ag e of the proceed ing s – not onl y w as there no “mi nimal r is k” that the defendant’s r ig ht t o a fai r tr ial mig ht be i mpaired by the lac k o f couns el dur ing that per iod , t here w as no r is k w hatev er . The sent ence thatw as ult imat ely i mposed, of course, w as an ex ercise of

the district court’s discretion to fashio n an app ropriate pun ishm entin a crimina l cont e m pt act ion. It is rev iew ed o n ap pea l fo r reaso nab lene ss, af ter def ense c o u n s e l h a s h a d t h e o p p o rt u n it y t o p re s e n ta ch a ll e n ge t o it s p ro p ri e t y. This reason abl eness rev iew i ncl udes an ex aminat ion of “t he factors e v alu ated and the procedu re s employ ed by the dis tr ic t cour t in re achi ng it s sent enci n g de te rminati on.” United S tates

v. Jo hnson , 467 F .3d 5 59, 5 63 ( 6th C ir . 200 6)

. The di stric t co u rt is t o be g uid ed by

factors i n 18 U. S.C . § 3553( a) and must est abl is h in the sent enci ng record tha t itco nsi dered th e § 3 553( a) factors. See United State s v. W

atfo rd , 468 F .3d 8 91, 9 16 ( 6th Ci r. 2006)

. L o m a z f irst all eg es that the s entenc e he re cei v ed i s u nr eason abl e bec ause the d i s t r i c t c o u rt a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n c o n s i d e r i n g o u t s i d e i n fo r ma t i o n , b a s e d on06-4071

United States v. Lomaz

- 8 - obser v ati ons in the c our

t’ s o pin ion that“ [i ]n recenty ears, fire wor ks hav e c aused many sev er e inj ur ies and s ig nific ant fire damag e to homes and ot her st ru ctu re s,” ac compani ed by statistics g lean ed from v arious sources set ou t in the o pinion . In his pr o s e moti on for recon siderat ion, th e de fend antmain taine d, as he do es o n ap pea l, thatthose statistics w ere “fla w ed and bia sed” and that there w as no ev ide nce that any one had ev er been inj ur ed by any firew or ks thathe h ad s old , a cl aim that had been ai re d dur ing the ev ide nti ar y hear ing in his ca se. There w as no ex pla nati on then – and t here i s n one on appeal – c oncer nin g w hat made the sta ti sti cs menti oned in the cour t’ s opi nio n flaw ed or bia sed, and w e are thu s lef t w ith no thing mo re than the de fend ant ’s bald asse rtion to th at ef fect. Moreover, cont rary to the curren t c la im t h a t the district cou rt did notcov er the § 355 3(a) facto rs in assessin g the sente nce, the sta tistics in question and relate d informa tion were obvi ously par t of the cour

t’ s c o n sid e ra tion of “ the n eed .

. . t o protec t t he publ ic ” and t o fashi on a penal ty that w oul d “reflect the ser iou snes s of t he off ense” in ter ms of i ts potent ial threat, as re q uired by

§ 35 53( a) and ex pli ci tl y se t outas such in the cour t’ s opini on. W e c oncl ude that the s entenc e i mposed by the dis tr ic t c our

t w as re asona ble

. CO NC LU SION
For the re asons se t outabov e, w e AF FI RM the jud g ment of the dis tr ic t c our t.