Carter

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Donald Harley Carter challenges his conviction on the ground that the district court erred in permitting him to proceed without counsel. On de novo review, United States v. Lopez-Osuna, 242 F.3d 1191, 1198 (9th Cir.2000), we affirm.

The Sixth Amendment protects both the right to counsel and the right to decline counsel in favor of representing oneself. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819-20 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Although the Constitution does not require a particular, formal recitation before a defendant chooses between these rights, we have “suggested, but not mandated, a preferred procedure for federal district courts to follow” in order to ensure that a defendant makes the choice to represent himself or herself “ ‘with eyes open.’ ” Lopez v. Thompson, 202 F.3d 1110, 1117 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (quoting Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835 ), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 883 , 121 S.Ct. 198 , 148 L.Ed.2d 138 (2000). The district court should discuss in open court whether a defendant knowingly and intelligently waives the right to counsel. Id. The court must ensure that the defendant understands (1) the nature of the charges, (2) the potential…