1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Emilio Urena-Villa,

Defendant. 

No. CR-17-01860-TUC-CKJ (BGM) 

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

 Currently pending before the Court are Defendant Emilio Urena-Villa’s pro se

Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. 43), Motion for a Bill of Particulars (Doc. 44), 

Motion for a Rebuttable Presumption Against Federal Jurisdiction (Doc. 45), and Petition 

to Dismiss Lack of Evidence (Doc. 56). The Government has filed its Consolidated 

Response (Doc. 49) to the first three (3) motions (Docs. 43, 44, 45); however, has not yet 

had the opportunity to respond to the petition (Doc. 56). 

 Defendant is charged with nine (9) counts of knowingly possessing ammunition, 

having been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one 

year, that is Burglary in the First Degree, and Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon 

and Discharging a Firearm at a Residential Structure in violation of Title 18, United 

States Code, Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Indictment (Doc. 1) at 1. Pursuant to 

LRCrim. 5.1, this matter is before Magistrate Judge Macdonald for a report and 

recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, after its 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

independent review, strike Defendant’s motions. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On April 2, 2018, a status conference was held regarding Defendant’s request to 

represent himself. Minute Entry 4/2/2018 (Doc. 29). Magistrate Judge Macdonald 

questioned Defendant consistent with Faretta v. California.

1

 At that time, Defendant 

indicated his desire to represent himself, without advisory counsel. The matter was 

continued, however, because Defendant was unclear regarding advisory counsel. See

Minute Entry 4/2/2018 (Doc. 29). On April 5, 2018, Defendant indicated that after 

further consideration, he wished to consider with representation. See Minute Entry 

4/5/2018 (Doc. 31). 

II. ANALYSIS 

 Defendant is currently represented by counsel. See Minute Entry 4/5/2018 (Doc. 

31). “While effective legal counsel is an essential right found in the Sixth Amendment, 

and the right to appear pro se is guaranteed by 28 U.S.C. s 1654, Faretta v. California, 

422 U.S. 806, 812-36, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2529-41, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), the two rights are 

disjunctive.” United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir. 1981). “A criminal 

defendant does not have an absolute right to both self-representation and the assistance of 

counsel.” Id. (citing United States v. Klee, 494 F.2d 394, 396-97 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 

419 U.S. 835, 95 S.Ct. 62, 42 L.Ed.2d 61 (1974); Duke v. United States, 255 F.2d 721, 

725-26 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 357 U.S. 920, 78 S.Ct. 1361, 2 L.Ed.2d 1365 (1958); 

United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535, 540 (5th Cir. 1978); United States v. Sacco, 571 

F.2d 791, 793 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 999, 98 S.Ct. 1656, 56 L.Ed.2d 90 (1978); 

United States v. Cyphers, 556 F.2d 630, 634 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 972, 97 

S.Ct. 2937, 53 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1977)). In light of this representation, only counsel may 

file motions. 28 U.S.C. § 1654. 

 1

 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). 
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to strike Defendant’s pro se motions 

from the record. 

IV. RECOMMENDATION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the District 

Judge after her independent review STRIKE Defendant Emilio Urena-Villa’s pro se

Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. 43), Motion for a Bill of Particulars (Doc. 44), 

Motion for a Rebuttable Presumption Against Federal Jurisdiction (Doc. 45), and Petition 

to Dismiss Lack of Evidence (Doc. 56). 

 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 59(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure, any party may serve and file written objections within fourteen (14) days after 

being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation. No reply shall be filed 

unless leave is granted from the District Court. If objections are filed, the parties should 

use the following case number: CR-17-01860-TUC-CKJ. 

 Failure to file timely objections to any factual or legal determination of the 

Magistrate Judge in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 59 may result in waiver of the right 

of review. 

 Dated this 25th day of June, 2018.