United States v. Richard Lee Owen, II, 963 F.3d 1040

Owen, a paralegal for a law firm, stole >$500,000 from the firm’s trust account by forging client checks; indicted on numerous counts including bank fraud, money laundering, and aggravated identity theft.
Court appointed Beau Worthington under the CJA; Owen initially signed a plea, withdrew it, then repeatedly complained about counsel and sought replacement counsel (denied).
Two business days before trial Owen filed a written Faretta waiver and, after an ex parte colloquy the morning trial began, the district court allowed him to proceed pro se; the court offered standby assistance which Owen refused.
Owen represented himself through two days of trial (participating in voir dire, cross-examination, evidentiary objections), then pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud and one count of money laundering and later admitted no attorney at the firm knew of his thefts. He was sentenced to 236 months’ imprisonment.
While detained, ~$7,000 sat in Owen’s jail account; the district court ordered $6,500 paid into the court registry and, after hearings, ordered the funds paid to the Treasury (CJA) to reimburse appointed counsel, finding the jail funds were not traceable solely to Social Security benefits.
On appeal Owen challenged (1) the validity of his Faretta waiver and (2) the seizure/payment procedure and the use of Social Security–derived funds to reimburse appointed counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of waiver to proceed pro se under Faretta	Owen: waiver was not knowing/intelligent/voluntary; district court failed to conduct adequate inquiry	Gov./district: record shows a proper Faretta colloquy, Owen was experienced, understood charges/penalties, and freely waived counsel	Waiver valid; convictions affirmed (Waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
Seizure and disbursement of jail funds under 18 U.S.C. §3006A(f) and Social Security exemption	Owen: court erred procedurally in seizing funds and abused authority by using Social Security benefits to reimburse CJA fees	District: court provided notice/hearings before disbursement, found commingling so Social Security exemption inapplicable; administrative payment orders under §3006A(f) largely not reviewable on appeal	Procedural challenge rejected as harmless (court afforded notice/hearings); merits of payment order (including Social Security tracing) dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction per Griggs

Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (constitutional right to self-representation and waiver standards)
United States v. Stanley, 739 F.3d 633 (11th Cir. 2014) (eight-factor test for evaluating Faretta waiver)
United States v. Griggs, 240 F.3d 974 (11th Cir. 2001) (§3006A(f) payment orders are administrative and generally unreviewable on appeal)
United States v. Bursey, 515 F.2d 1228 (5th Cir. 1975) (requires notice/opportunity before disbursing registry funds to reimburse appointed counsel)
United States v. Kimball, 291 F.3d 726 (11th Cir. 2002) (Faretta inquiry purpose and defendant understanding)
Strozier v. Newsome, 926 F.2d 1100 (11th Cir. 1991) (closer tolerance to trial requires more rigorous Faretta inquiry)
United States v. Cash, 47 F.3d 1083 (11th Cir. 1995) (ideal Faretta hearing elements)
Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057 (11th Cir. 1986) (defendant must clearly and unequivocally assert right to self-representation)