US v. killercop.com, No. 04-50189 (10-11-07).
The accused was an IT employee. He was let go by his company, and then SSNs started appearing on websites, and threats being made. The defendant apparently ignored a restraining order, and became increasingly hostile. He was eventually charged and convicted on interstate threats and transferring SSN numbers to facilitate a criminal activity.
On appeal he raises numerous issues. the most interesting is the trial court's "implicit finding" that he waived counsel. He went through five appointed lawyers, suing them or attacking them or blatantly disregarding their advice.
The court, exasperated, held that his actions were akin to his wanting self-representation, and the court so ordered, with an appointment of stand-by counsel. The 9th affirmed. The 9th held that the defendant's actions toward and relationship with appointed counsel made it clear that the district court did not err in finding self-representation.
This finding was carried over to the defendant's argument that he should have had appointed counsel for sentencing.
The 9th held that stand by counsel acted in the defendant's interests.
This issue differs from trial representation, and once a conviction occurred, it could be argued that counsel was needed, especially with guidelines. The 9th however affirmed.
Lastly, there was no Ameline error, because the 9th held that the sentence would have been the same. (This strikes one as being annoyed with appellant.)
Gee, I'm glad they didn't get aggravated at me.