Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Francis BANVILLE, a/k/a Rich Banville, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-06
Citations: 281 F. App'x 733
Docket Number: No. 07-50088
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Francis BANVILLE, a/k/a Rich Banville, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 281
Pages: 733–733

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Francis BANVILLE, a/k/a Rich Banville, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-50088.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 4, 2008.
Filed June 6, 2008.
Michael J. Raphael, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Criminal Division, Los Angeles, CA, Terri K Flynn, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Richard Francis Banville, Taft, CA, pro se.
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, ALDISERT and D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
A criminal defendant's assertion of his right to self-representation must be (1) knowing and intelligent; (2) timely and not for the purpose of delay; and (3) unequivocal. Adams v. Carroll, 875 F.2d 1441, 1442 (9th Cir.1989). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Richard Banville's request to represent himself on the first day of trial was made for the purpose of delay.
In reviewing the denial of a motion to substitute counsel, this court considers (1) the timeliness of the motion; (2) the adequacy of the court's inquiry into the defendant's complaint; and (3) whether the conflict between the defendant and counsel was so great that it resulted in a total lack of communication preventing an adequate legal defense. See, e.g., United States v. George, 85 F.3d 1433, 1438 (9th Cir.1996). Here, as in George, "it is clear that this motion was untimely (the day of trial), the district court made adequate inquiry, and there was no total lack of communication." Id. at 1439.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.