United States v. Lussier ( 1995 )

USCA1 Opinion

          March 29, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 94-1005

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                   JOSEPH LUSSIER,

                                Defendant, Appellant.



                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________

                                 ____________________

            Joseph Lussier on brief pro se.
______________
            Loretta  C.  Argrett,   Assistant  Attorney  General,  Robert   E.
____________________                                   ___________
        Lindsay, Alan  Hechtkopf, Michael  E. Karam, Attorneys,  Tax Division,
_______  _______________  _________________
        Department of Justice, and Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney,
__________________
        on brief for appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________






















                 Per  Curiam.   Appellant was  adequately advised  of his
___________

            right  to  proceed  pro se  and  his  right  to an  appointed

            attorney.1   He  was  further properly  told  that unless  he

            waived the latter right, he would not be permitted to proceed

            pro se and  an attorney would be  appointed.  Tuitt  v. Fair,
______________

            822 F.2d 166, 167   (1st Cir.) (trial court may  "insist that

            the  right to go  pro se be  conditioned upon an  express and

            unequivocal waiver  of counsel"), cert. denied,  484 U.S. 945
____________

            (1987).   Appellant  refused to  waive his right  to counsel.

            Consequently, the  district court  did not err  in appointing

            counsel for him.

                 Moreover,  the   district  court   did  not  abuse   its

            discretion in   refusing to permit  Peter Van Daam  to sit at

            counsel table, United States v. Lussier, 929 F.2d 25, 28 (1st
________________________

            Cir. 1991)  ("no infirmity in the  district court's exclusion

            of lay counsel  from the proceedings"),  or in not  requiring

            appointed counsel to consult with Van Daam.

                 We have  considered all of defendant's  arguments and do

            not find any merit in his appeal.

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
________   ___







____________________

            1.  In referring to appellant's right to be represented by an
            attorney,  the district  court  at some  times used  the word
            "counsel"  and at  other times  "attorney."   The  words were
            interchangeable  in the  particular context.   To  the extent
            appellant is  contending  otherwise,  we  find  the  argument
            specious.