Case Name: James S. WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SUPERIOR COURT KERN COUNTY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-06-14
Citations: 37 F. App'x 890
Docket Number: No. 01-16347; D.C. No. CV-93-05508-REC
Parties: James S. WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. SUPERIOR COURT KERN COUNTY, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 37
Pages: 890–891

Head Matter:
James S. WILLIAMS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. SUPERIOR COURT KERN COUNTY, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 01-16347.
D.C. No. CV-93-05508-REC.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted May 15, 2002.
Decided June 14, 2002.
Before HAWKINS and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI, Judge.
Honorable Jane A. Restani, United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
We previously remanded this case for the district court to determine whether Williams's request to represent himself on the day of trial was made for the purpose of delay. Williams v. Kern County Superior Court, 1999 WL 132271 (9th Cir.1999). The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and heard testimony from Williams, his trial counsel, the state prosecutor and the state trial judge. The district court concluded that the request for self-representation was just "another effort to delay the trial." Because the district court properly considered the "purpose of delay" factors of Fritz v. Spalding, 682 F.2d 782 (9th Cir.1982), and its factual findings are not clearly erroneous, we affirm the denial of habeas relief.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.