United States v. Frank Steffensen

66 F.3d 337 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank STEFFENSEN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-30308. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 7, 1995. * Decided Sept. 12, 1995. Before: HALL, WIGGINS, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges. MEMORANDUM ** Frank Steffensen appeals his jury conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 (a)(1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and hereby affirm. Steffensen claims that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, by finding that he had waived his right to be represented at trial and essentially forcing him to proceed pro se. Based upon our review of the record, however, we find that Steffensen made an unequivocal, timely, knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. See, e.g., Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975); Adams v. Carroll, 875 F.2d 1441,…