United States v. Frederick Cunningham, 564 F. App'x 190

Cunningham was convicted of assaulting a federal officer under 18 U.S.C. § 111(a) with an enhancement for touching the officer during the act, carrying an 8-year maximum.
He received a 48-month federal sentence, to run consecutively to a Michigan state sentence.
The underlying incident occurred when officers attempted to stop Cunningham at his doctor’s appointment; he accelerated, causing an officer to roll over the car hood during a pursuit.
Cunningham contested intent, claiming he did not intend to strike the officer; the officer and other witnesses testified Cunningham did not intend to injure him.
During trial, Cunningham moved to represent himself pro se on the second day; the district court denied as untimely, citing disruption and other practical concerns.
On appeal, Cunningham challenged (i) denial of self-representation, (ii) the §111(a) intent issue, and (iii) the consecutivity of the federal sentence; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of self-representation request	Cunningham contends the district court should have conducted a McDowell inquiry.	Court properly denied as untimely given trial disruption and stage of proceedings.	Untimely request upheld; no McDowell inquiry required.
Intent for physical contact under §111(a)	Cunningham argues insufficient intent to touch the officer supports acquittal.	Statute uses intent in a way that could be inferred; not fully resolved on direct appeal.	Issue not resolved on the merits; court declines to reconsider in light of prior circuit authority.
Consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing	Consecutive sentence was improper given state sentence context.	District court adequately considered §3553(a) factors and rationale for consecutive sentencing.	No abuse of discretion; consecutive sentence affirmed.

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (Sixth Amendment right to self-representation requires a timely, unequivocal assertion)
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate Dist., 528 U.S. 152 (2000) (right to self-representation not absolute; timely exercise required)
Robard v. Rees, 789 F.2d 379 (6th Cir. 1986) (holistic, timely inquiry for self-representation; timeliness matters)
United States v. McDowell, 814 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1987) (McDowell colloquy required for waiver of counsel when timely)
United States v. Cochrane, 702 F.3d 334 (6th Cir. 2012) (district court must articulate rationale for consecutive sentencing)
United States v. Johnson, 640 F.3d 195 (6th Cir. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion review of consecutive sentencing factors)
United States v. Washington, 596 F.3d 926 (8th Cir. 2010) (timeliness and purpose of self-representation requests; no bright-line rule)
United States v. Gagnon, 553 F.3d 1021 (6th Cir. 2008) (intent in §111(a) context and related circuit interpretation)
United States v. Kimes, 246 F.3d 800 (6th Cir. 2001) (intent may be inferred from the act for §111(a) offenses)