United States of America v. Love Thomas Cooper

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LOVE THOMAS COOPER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-30152
D.C. No. 1:10-cr-00047-JDS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Jack D. Shanstrom, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 6, 2013**
Seattle, Washington
Before: FISHER, GOULD and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Love Thomas Wright Cooper appeals his conviction and sentence
for felony possession of firearms in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We have
jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
FEB 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
1. The district court adequately apprised Cooper of the dangers and
disadvantages of self-representation when it informed him of the numerous tasks
that he would have to undertake to prepare for trial, emphasized that he would have
to accomplish these tasks while in confinement, informed him that he would be
held to the same standard as any attorney, told Cooper that no exceptions would be
made for him and said that it would be “a difficult road” ahead of him if he chose
to represent himself. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975).
Cooper’s decision to nevertheless proceed without counsel was thus knowing and
voluntary. See United States v. Farhad, 190 F.3d 1097, 1098-1100 (9th Cir. 1999).
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing an above-
Guidelines, 80-month sentence of imprisonment. See Gall v. United States, 552
U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The sentence imposed was justified by Cooper’s manifest lack
of respect for the law and the danger to the community demonstrated by his past
criminal conduct and statements made while incarcerated. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). The district court also “adequately explain[ed]” the sentence. Gall, 552
U.S. at 50.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --