Moos

MEMORANDUM ***

John Jeffrey Von Moos (“appellant”) appeals his convictions for armed bank rob *679 bery and using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence after proceeding pro se before the Court without a jury. Appellant claims that his Faretta waiver of counsel and his jury waiver were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and that his court appointed psychiatrist was not competent. We affirm.

Although a criminal defendant is entitled to representation by counsel at all stages of a criminal proceeding, he or she has the right to waive assistance of counsel and proceed pro se. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 833 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). To waive the right to counsel, a defendant must make a knowing and intelligent decision that represents an exercise of informed free will. Id. at 809-810 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 . A proper waiver occurs only when the defendant has been made aware of 1) the nature of the charges against him; 2) the possible penalties; and 3) the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation. United States v. Farhad, 190 F.3d 1097, 1099 (9th Cir.1999). In this case appellant concedes that he understood the nature of the charges against…