Burgess

MEMORANDUM *

William Mark Burgess appeals his conviction and sentence for passing a fictitious instrument appearing to be an actual security issued under the authority of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 514 (a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a), and we affirm.

We reject Burgess’s claim that his Farretta waiver was not knowing and intelligent. On two different occasions the district court “discussed with the defendant, in open court, whether his waiver was knowing and intelligently made, with an understanding of the charges, the possible penalties, and the dangers of self-representation.” Lopez v. Thompson, 202 F.3d 1110, 1117 (9th Cir.2000). At both the October 25, 2002 status conference and the May 28, 2003 hearing, the court advised Burgess of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation; at both hearings Burgess repeatedly indicated that he understood the concerns and warnings of the district court.

Nor is there merit to Burgess’s contention that the court should have suspected that he was not competent to waive his right to counsel, and that the illogical nature of his statements and filings were sufficient…