Stockett
United States v. Stockett
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
The district court did not err by denying Larry Stockett’s (“Stockett”) oral request to represent himself without prejudice and instructing him to consult with his newly-appointed counsel first. Stockett did not renew his request. On these *602 facts, his request was not sufficiently unequivocal. See United States v. Kennedy, 564 F.2d 1329, 1340 (9th Cir.1977); United States v. Hernandez, 203 F.3d 614, 623 (9th Cir.2000).
Stockett’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is not adequately developed to permit review on direct appeal. See United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 845 (9th Cir.2003) (ineffective assistance claims are normally not appropriate on direct review). We deny this claim without prejudice.
Prosecuting and sentencing Stockett for securities fraud did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, which only prohibits multiple criminal punishments for the same offense. Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 99 , 118 S.Ct. 488 , 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997). Stockett’s prior SEC judgment was civil in nature; disgorgement and monetary penalties are not criminal. See United States v. Gartner, 93 F.3d 633, 635 (9th Cir.1996); Reiserer v. United States, 479 F.3d…