Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Unpublished
Unpublished
No. 14-4197
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:11-cr-00404-FDW-DSC-1)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
A jury convicted Zonta Tavaras Ellison on three counts
of
possession
of
cocaine
base
with
intent
to
distribute,
in
On appeal, Ellison
right
to
counsel;
and
(2) failing
to
grant
him
We affirm.
I.
A defendant may waive his right to counsel so long as
he is competent and the waiver is made intelligently.
v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975).
Faretta
We review de novo a
of
self-representation
unequivocal;
timely.
(2)
knowing,
. . .
intelligent
must
and
An assertion of the
be
(1) clear
voluntary;
and
and
(3)
A defendant
should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of selfrepresentation, so that the record will establish that he knows
what
he
is
doing
and
his
choice
is
made
with
eyes
open.
[a]
or
precise
procedure
litany
for
this
evaluation.
review
and
of
the
unequivocally
representation.
record
demonstrates
asserted
his
that
right
Ellison
to
self-
district
Ellisons
court
did
not
err
in
granting
request
to
him
responsibility.
two-level
reduction
for
acceptance
of
To establish
plain error, an appellant must show (1) that the district court
erred, (2) that the error is clear or obvious, and (3) that the
Webb,
738
F.3d
638,
640-41
(4th
Cir.
United States
2013)
(internal
integrity
proceedings.
or
public
reputation
of
judicial
Ellison
argues
that
the
assertion
of
an
for
acceptance
of
responsibility.
Although
some
182
F.3d
1165,
1172-74
(10th
Cir.
1999)
(affirming
reduction), Ellison has not shown that the district court erred,
much less that the error was clear or obvious.
Ellisons entrapment defense was directly related to
factual
guilt
and
was
inconsistent
with
acceptance
of
1996)
district
court
did
not
clearly
err
in
denying
adjustment
because
defendants
meritless
affirmative
This is
informant,
distribute cocaine.
that
the
district
he
lacked
the
intent
to
sell
and
erred
in
adopting
the
presentence
report, which stated that the reduction did not apply, we find
this argument unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we affirm the district courts judgment.
We
dispense
contentions
with
are
oral
argument
adequately
because
presented
in
the
facts
and
the
materials
legal
before
this court, and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED