US v. Vincent Missouri

Filing 920100623

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-4607

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. VINCENT MISSOURI, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (6:00-cr-00498-MBS-1)

Submitted:

June 10, 2010

Decided:

June 23, 2010

Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis H. Lang, CALLISON TIGHE & ROBINSON, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, David C. Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Vincent Missouri appeals the thirty-six month sentence imposed by the district court following revocation of his term of supervised release. On appeal, Missouri's sole argument is

that the district court erred in denying his motion to proceed pro se. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. While the Sixth Amendment grants a defendant the right to proceed pro se at trial, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819 (1975), it does not extend that right to supervised release revocation proceedings. 650 (5th Cir. 2006). United States v. Hodges, 460 F.3d 646, Instead, the Federal Rule of Criminal to self-

Procedure

32.1(b)(2)

governs

defendant's

right

representation, granting a defendant the right to retain counsel or request appointment of counsel unless that right is knowingly and voluntarily waived. 500 (4th Cir. 2005). proceed pro se is United States v. Farrell, 393 F.3d 498,

The district court's denial of a motion to reviewed for abuse of discretion. See

Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 790 (1973) (stating "that the decision as to the need for counsel must be made on a case-bycase basis in the exercise of a sound discretion"). Even

assuming, without deciding, that the district court abused its discretion in denying Missouri's motion to proceed pro se, we find that any error was harmless and did not affect Missouri's 2

substantial rights, as the district court allowed both counsel and Missouri ample Fed. opportunity R. Crim. that to P. advance 52(a) Missouri's error, pro se

argument.

See or

("Any

defect,

irregularity,

variance

does

not

affect

substantial

rights must be disregarded."). Accordingly, we deny Missouri's motion to file a pro se supplemental brief and affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. AFFIRMED

3