United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Frank Steffensen, Defendant-appellant, 66 F.3d 337 (9th Cir. 1995)

Before: HALL, WIGGINS, and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM^** 

Frank Steffensen appeals his jury conviction for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and hereby affirm.

Steffensen claims that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, by finding that he had waived his right to be represented at trial and essentially forcing him to proceed pro se. Based upon our review of the record, however, we find that Steffensen made an unequivocal, timely, knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. See, e.g., Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975); Adams v. Carroll, 875 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1989). Further, because Steffensen validly asserted his right to proceed pro se, the district court's decision not to appoint counsel under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, was not in error. Similarly, the district court's denial of Steffensen's new trial motion was not an abuse of discretion.