United States v. Christopher Kelley, 787 F.3d 915

Kelley moved for substitute counsel or to proceed pro se on the morning of his arson trial; the district court denied.
After trial, Kelley was found guilty on both arson counts.
On direct appeal, we affirmed in part and remanded for clarification of the denial of Kelley’s motion to proceed pro se.
On remand, the district court clarified the decision, finding Kelley’s request neither timely nor unequivocal and denying the pro se request.
Kelley provided a pro se motion presenting concerns about ineffective assistance and due process; the court reviewed it and denied substitution, proceeding with trial.
We affirm Kelley’s conviction after reviewing the totality of the circumstances and the district court’s handling of the pro se request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court err by denying pro se without a Faretta hearing?	Kelley	District Court	No error; request not timely/unequivocal.
Was Kelley's Faretta request properly characterized on remand as untimely or equivocal?	Kelley	District Court	Yes, not timely and not unequivocal.
Was the district court required to hold a Faretta hearing under the circumstances?	Kelley	District Court	No; no Faretta hearing required given the record.

United States v. Edelmann, 458 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2006) (Faretta-related requirements for self-representation and waiver)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (Supreme Court 1975) (right to self-representation; need for a Faretta hearing upon a clear request)
Bilauski v. Steele, 754 F.3d 519 (8th Cir. 2014) (Faretta hearing required when request is clear and unequivocal)
United States v. Mosley, 607 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2010) (de novo review standard for denial of pro se)
United States v. Kelley, 774 F.3d 434 (8th Cir. 2014) (prior panel decision addressing pro se request and remand for clarification)