Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard James HUMPAL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-15
Citations: 237 F. App'x 249
Docket Number: No. 06-50094
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Richard James HUMPAL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 237
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Richard James HUMPAL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-50094.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007.
Filed June 15, 2007.
Becky S. Walker, Esq., USLA-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Sean K. Lokey, Esq., USR-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Riverside, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Karen L. Landau, Esq., Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Richard James Humpal appeals from his conviction for assaulting a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Humpal contends that the district court erred in allowing him to represent himself at trial in accordance with Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), because he never unequivocally stated that he wished to represent himself. The record, however, reflects an unequivocal request for self-representation. See Adams v. Carroll, 875 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir.1989) (conditional request for self-representation not equivocal where defendant persisted in seeking to waive his right to counsel); United States v. Massey, 419 F.3d 1008, 1010 (9th Cir.2005), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2019, 164 L.Ed.2d 786 (2006); cf. United States v. Kienenberger, 13 F.3d 1354, 1356 (9th Cir.1994) (no error in district court's denial of counsel's motion to withdraw, where defendant always accompanied requests to be "counsel of record" with a request for appointment of advisory or standby counsel).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.