Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eldon Philip ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-23
Citations: 669 F. App'x 319
Docket Number: No. 16-2251
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eldon Philip ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 319–320

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Eldon Philip ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant
No. 16-2251
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted; September 20, 2016
Filed: September 23, 2016
James Lackner, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Saint Paul, MN, Jeffrey S. Paulsen, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Eldon Philip Anderson, Pro Se
Andrew H. Mohring, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Defendant-Appellant
Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Eldon Philip Anderson appeals following the district court's revocation of his su pervised release and imposition of a 6-month sentence. Mr. Anderson's sole argument on appeal is that the district court committed a Sixth Amendment error by-permitting him to waive his fundamental right to counsel without giving him the warnings required by Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). We disagree. The Sixth Amendment does not apply here. See United States v. Boultinghouse, 784 F.3d 1163, 1171 (7th Cir. 2015) (Sixth Amendment, which grants defendant right to assistance of counsel at all critical stages of criminal proceeding, does not apply in hearing convened to decide if supervised release should be revoked). Further, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in accepting Mr. Anderson's waiver of his right to counsel in the revocation proceeding, as the totality of the circumstances reflect that he made a knowing and voluntary choice to proceed on his own. See id. at 1171-72. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.