United States v. Orlando Preston, 50 F.4th 681

In 2014 Preston pleaded guilty to conspiracy, mail fraud, and operating a chop shop; sentenced to 5 years’ prison and 3 years’ supervised release; underlying conviction affirmed on appeal.
While on supervised release, his probation officer filed a revocation petition alleging failure to report an arrest, failure to report to his officer, failure to submit to drug testing, and failure to pay restitution.
The district court initially appointed James Miller as counsel; Miller moved to withdraw after Preston said he no longer wanted Miller to represent him.
Preston requested to proceed pro se with Miller as standby; the court conducted a colloquy, warned against self‑representation, confirmed Preston’s prior self‑representation experience, and found him competent to waive counsel.
At the revocation hearing Preston cross‑examined witnesses and testified; the court found violations for failing to report to his officer, missing drug tests, and failing to pay restitution (but not for failure to notify of an arrest), revoked supervised release, and sentenced him to 13 months.
On appeal Preston argued his waiver of counsel was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent; the Eighth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Issue	Preston's Argument	Government's / District Argument	Held
Whether Preston validly waived his statutory right to counsel at a supervised‑release revocation hearing	Waiver was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent; colloquy and circumstances insufficient	Colloquy and totality of circumstances show waiver was knowing and voluntary; review is abuse of discretion	Waiver was valid; district court did not abuse its discretion
Whether the court erred by not appointing standby counsel	Preston contends he was effectively left with only pro se option and lacked standby assistance	Court encouraged appointed counsel and offered appointment; no entitlement to standby counsel	No error; defendant has no constitutional right to standby counsel and court encouraged counsel
Whether Preston’s prior filings (sovereign‑citizen/Moorish‑American assertions) showed incapacity to waive counsel	Prior filings show inability to understand self‑representation and thus incapacity to waive	Unorthodox beliefs do not necessarily show incapacity; record shows competent self‑representation at hearing	Rejected; prior filings did not render waiver invalid

United States v. Owen, 854 F.3d 536 (8th Cir. 2017) (abuse‑of‑discretion review of pro se allowance)
United States v. Ivers, 44 F.4th 753 (8th Cir. 2022) (waiver of counsel must be knowing and voluntary; shown by colloquy or totality of circumstances)
United States v. Lamm, 5 F.4th 942 (8th Cir. 2021) (defendant has no right to standby counsel)
United States v. James, 328 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2003) (unorthodox or odd beliefs do not automatically negate capacity to waive rights)
United States v. Preston, [citation="598 F. App'x 465"] (8th Cir. 2015) (affirming underlying conviction)