United States v. William Steiniger

MEMORANDUM

Defendants-Appellants William Steini-ger and Diane Goulder Steiniger appeal their convictions for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and Evasion of Assessment. As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them here except as necessary to explain our disposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

The district court did not violate the Steinigers’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel by granting their requests for self-representation. A criminal defendant who requests self-representation should “be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.” Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 885 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court provided detailed warnings about the dangers and disadvantages of self-repredentation. The court informed the Steinigers of the duties that they would assume without counsel, and explicitly advised them that proceeding without counsel was risky. Moreover, the district court reasonably concluded that the…