United States v. Ferreira, 698 F. App'x 634

Melanie Ferreira was indicted on wire fraud, false claims, bank fraud, and obstruction of tax administration; convicted after a jury trial in S.D.N.Y. and sentenced to concurrent prison terms (major counts: 51 months).
At initial presentment and multiple pretrial conferences Ferreira knowingly and repeatedly waived counsel and proceeded pro se with standby counsel appointed; judges admonished her that self-representation was unwise and that she could not later claim ineffective assistance.
Government evidence showed fraudulent 2008 and 2009 tax returns (including a $440,924 refund), rapid depletion of wired IRS funds (frequent withdrawals just under $10,000), forged cashier’s check and checks on closed account; Ferreira presented no defense at trial.
Ferreira sought a 90-day continuance five days before trial to review newly produced material and for family reasons; the court granted a six-day adjournment but denied a longer delay.
On appeal Ferreira challenged (1) the district court’s acceptance/continuation of her self-representation, (2) several evidentiary rulings (404(b) testimony, anti-government materials, co-conspirators’ structuring evidence), and (3) the denial of a longer continuance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Faretta waiver / self-representation	Government: waiver was knowing, voluntary, and judges adequately warned Ferreira	Ferreira: trial court erred in permitting or continuing self-representation; later effectively requested counsel	Court: waiver was valid; district court did not err in allowing pro se representation
Admission of prior-act (404(b)) testimony	Gov: testimony showed knowledge, intent, and absence of mistake	Ferreira: testimony was unfairly prejudicial and impermissible propensity evidence	Court: admission proper; probative on intent and not substantially outweighed by prejudice
Admission of anti-government/anti-tax documents	Gov: relevant to intent and rebutted good-faith defense	Ferreira: evidence was unduly prejudicial and irrelevant	Court: admissible and not unduly prejudicial because it bore on intent
Evidence of structuring by associates (withdrawals < $10,000)	Gov: showed awareness of illicit scheme by participants	Ferreira: (no contemporaneous objection)	Court: plain-error review; evidence was probative and not plainly erroneous or unduly prejudicial
Denial of longer continuance	Gov: court granted reasonable short delay; evidence largely cumulative	Ferreira: needed 90 days to review recently produced material and for family reasons	Court: trial scheduling within broad discretion; denial not arbitrary and defendant not prejudiced

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (recognition of right to self-representation)
United States v. Fore, 169 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 1999) (context-specific waiver analysis)
United States v. Spencer, 995 F.2d 10 (2d Cir. 1993) (standard of review for waiver findings)
United States v. Culbertson, 670 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2012) (no talismanic procedure required for waiver)
United States v. Paulino, 445 F.3d 211 (2d Cir. 2006) (Rule 404(b) balancing of probative value and prejudice)
United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Guang, 511 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2007) (evidentiary review principles)
United States v. Pierce, 785 F.3d 832 (2d Cir. 2015) (plain-error review when no contemporaneous objection)
Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1 (discretion in denying continuances)
United States v. Arena, 180 F.3d 380 (2d Cir. 1999) (continuance reversal requires arbitrariness and prejudice)
Scheidler v. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393 (referenced on abrogation point)