United States v. Barry Jay Feldman

ORDER

In his motion of May 11,1987, Barry Jay Feldman contends that he was deprived of his sixth amendment right to appointed counsel on direct appeal. He requests that we recall the mandate in this case and grant him a new appeal. In his motion of May 15, 1987, Feldman asks this court to appoint an attorney to represent him in any further proceedings before this court.

The right to counsel on direct appeal arises not from the sixth amendment, but from due process and equal protection considerations. See, e.g., Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 (1963); Ross v. Moffit, 417 U.S. 600, 608-09 , 94 S.Ct. 2437, 2442-43 , 41 L.Ed.2d 341 (1974). The rationale is that it would be unfair to allow wealthy defendants the benefit of representation on appeal, while denying the benefit to indigent defendants. See Douglas, 372 U.S. at 355-58 , 83 S.Ct. at 815-17 .

Feldman appeared pro se throughout his trial. He continued to appear pro se during his appeal, assisted by a Federal Public Defender who served as advisory counsel. In correspondence with the court clerk regarding his appeal, Feldman repeatedly referred to himself as “counsel of record.” In a letter…