Goutakolis

MEMORANDUM

Panagiotis Goutakolis appeals his convictions for sending threats to injure in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875 (c). Goutakolis claims that the district judge improperly denied him his right to self-representation under Faretta v. *749 California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we AFFIRM.

The parties are familiar with the facts and we therefore need not repeat them here except as necessary to explain our decision.

DISCUSSION

1. Standard of Review

Our precedent is somewhat unclear as to whether we review a district judge’s refusal to allow a defendant to represent himself de novo or for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., United States v. George, 56 F.3d 1078, 1084 (9th Cir.1995) (noting uncertainty as to standard of review). However, we need not decide that issue here, because we conclude that the district judge’s decision not to allow Goutakolis to represent himself was correct even under de novo review.

2. Goutakolis Did Not Clearly and Unequivocally State That He Wished to Represent Himself.

In order to take advantage of the right to proceed pro se, a defendant…

dissenting.

As I read the record, Panagiotis Goutakolis clearly and unequivocally expressed a desire to act as his own counsel. The district court plainly understood Goutakolis to have so moved, and denied that motion on the merits. Because the district court’s reasons for denying the motion do not provide a permissible basis to deny Goutakolis his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation, I dissent.

True, as the majority points out, the district judge was at first unclear whether Goutakolis wished to proceed pro se, and Goutakolis’ answers to the judge’s inquiries were sometimes nonresponsive. But any confusion regarding the nature of Goutakolis’ request was resolved as the hearing on representation proceeded.

The following excerpts from the record are illustrative:

Nor was Goutakolis’s request to represent himself equivocal merely because that desire might have been secondary to his desire that the court order his lawyer to comply with his tactical decisions regarding his defense. United States v. Hernandez, 208 F.3d 614, 621 (9th Cir.2000) (a conditional request can be unequivocal).

The defendant’s motion to proceed pro se was voiced with sufficient resolve for the…