USA v. McCray

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AMARILLO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DONALD RAY MCCRAY.,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
2:25-CR-0053-X-BR-1
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a
recommendation in this case (FCR). (Doc. 94). Defendant Donald McCray filed
objections. (Doc. 104). McCray’s objections are rooted in the continued assertion
that McCray has a fundamental right to represent himself and because he desires to
present his own defense pro se and “[t]hat should settle the matter.”1 The Supreme
Court would disagree.2
Yes, McCray “has clearly, unequivocally, knowingly, and intelligently waived
his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.”3 But, McCray “has subsequently waived his
1 Doc. 104 at 2.
2 “The Supreme Court rejected the notion that the Sixth Amendment right to be present at
one’s own trial is absolute regardless of the defendant’s unruly or disruptive conduct.” United States
v. Hill, 63 F.4th 335, 349 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 342 (1970)).
3 Doc. 94 at 1.
Case 2:25-cr-00053-X-BR Document 105 Filed 03/27/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
right to represent himself by deliberate and serious obstructionist conduct.”4
Exceptions to the Sixth Amendment exist “that could justify a court’s decision to
withhold” the right of self-representation.5
Tellingly, McCray’s objections fail to analyze how McCray’s obstructionist
conduct undermines his ability to represent himself—amounting to a concession of
McCray’s “serious and obstructionist misconduct.”6 Nor do McCray’s objections
address the fact that “once a pro se defendant is removed from the courtroom for
disruptive behavior, the appropriate procedure is for the court to revoke pro se
status.”7 Likely because McCray has been removed from multiple court proceedings
due to his disruptive and obstructionist behavior.8
The District Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings,
conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the
remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error.
Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation
of the United States Magistrate Judge.
For the reasons stated in the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the
United States Magistrate Judge, the Court DENIES Defendant Donald McCray’s
4 Id.
5 Id. at 5; see e.g. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975); Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337
(1970); United States v. Hill, 63 F.4th 335 (5th Cir. 2023).
6 United States v. Hill, 63 F.4th at 349.
7 Id.
8 Doc. 94 at 7.
Case 2:25-cr-00053-X-BR Document 105 Filed 03/27/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
motion to dismiss appointed counsel and represent himself. (Doc. 81).
To clarify, because McCray has waived his right to represent himself by his
deliberate and serious obstructionist conduct the Office of the Federal Public
Defender for the Northern District of Texas will represent McCray as full counsel and
not stand-by counsel in these proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of March 2026.
____________________________________
BRANTLEY STARR
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:25-cr-00053-X-BR Document 105 Filed 03/27/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>