Keiser

MEMORANDUM *

The facts and procedural posture of this case are familiar to the parties and we do not repeat them here. Ronald Reiser appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed. Reiser argues the district court erred by excluding him from the courtroom during portions of his trial, not allowing him to represent himself, applying sentencing guidelines and a supervised release statute that violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, and imposing a substantively unreasonable sentence. We affirm.

The Confrontation Clause guarantees a defendant’s right to be present in the courtroom “at every stage of his trial.” Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 338 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 , 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970). However, this right is not absolute and can be forfeited if a defendant behaves in a disorderly or obstructionist manner. Id. at 342-43 , 90 S.Ct. 1057 .

Reiser’s conduct at his trial as well as in other hearings justifies his removal from the courtroom during his trial. On multiple occasions the court explained to Reiser how he would be required to act in court and repeatedly warned him that failure to act accordingly would result in his removal from the courtroom. The court removed him to a location…