United States v. Marks ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                     FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 05-30218
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                 D.C. No.
    v.                              CR-02-00423-002-
    RICHARD ERNEST MARKS,                                 JCC
    Defendant-Appellant.
            OPINION
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted
    October 16, 2007—Seattle, Washington
    Filed June 13, 2008
    Before: Betty B. Fletcher, C. Arlen Beam,* and
    Pamela Ann Rymer, Circuit Judges.
    Opinion by Judge B. Fletcher
    *The Honorable C. Arlen Beam, Senior United States Circuit Judge for
    the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
    6861
    UNITED STATES v. MARKS                6865
    COUNSEL
    William C. Broberg (argued), Seattle, Washington, for the
    defendant-appellant.
    Alan Hechtkopf, Gregory V. Davis (argued), Tax Division,
    Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Jeffrey C. Sullivan
    (of counsel), United States Attorney, Seattle, Washington, for
    the plaintiff-appellee.
    OPINION
    B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge:
    Defendant Richard Marks (“Marks”) was convicted of
    numerous offenses arising from his involvement in Ander-
    6866                UNITED STATES v. MARKS
    son’s Ark and Associates (“AAA”), an organization that cre-
    ated, promoted, and implemented schemes to assist U.S. tax-
    payers in the evasion of their income tax liabilities and that
    also defrauded its own clients. Marks was sentenced to serve
    a prison term and to pay restitution.
    Marks appeals his conviction and sentence on several
    grounds: that the district court denied him a fair trial because
    it was biased against him and the other pro se defendants; that
    the court erred in failing to address Marks’ jurisdictional chal-
    lenges; that the court’s restitution order is invalid because it
    was not entered until after the ninety-day statutory period set
    forth in 
    18 U.S.C. § 3664
    (d)(5); that the court’s ex parte entry
    of the restitution order violated Marks’ right to be present at
    a critical stage of the proceeding and his right to allocute; that
    the court erred in failing to sua sponte examine Marks’ com-
    petence to stand trial; and that the court erred in allowing
    Marks to proceed to trial pro se.
    We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we
    affirm.
    I.
    In December 2002, the government indicted Marks and
    nine other defendants in the Western District of Washington.
    The government filed a superseding indictment in December
    2003 and a second superseding indictment in August 2004.
    The second superseding indictment charged the defendants
    with various counts of conspiracy, aiding and assisting in the
    preparation and filing of false tax returns, mail fraud, wire
    fraud, international money laundering, and conspiracy to
    commit money laundering.
    In October 2003, at Marks’ first arraignment, the district
    court appointed counsel to represent Marks. Soon thereafter
    Marks filed a motion to proceed pro se and his appointed
    counsel likewise filed a motion to allow Marks to proceed pro
    UNITED STATES v. MARKS                 6867
    se with standby counsel. At a hearing on the motions, Marks
    stated that while he wanted “effective assistance of counsel,”
    he did not wish to be represented by someone whose “primary
    obligation” was to the court. Marks also stated that he was not
    requesting standby counsel. The court denied both motions.
    In March 2004, the district court held a hearing on
    appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw. Marks repeated that
    he wished to have “effective assistance of counsel,” but told
    the court that he found his attorney “not qualified in the law
    to be counsel” and stated that he “would rather go pro se than
    have the Court appoint an attorney.” The court granted the
    motion to withdraw but appointed new counsel to represent
    Marks.
    Marks’ new counsel subsequently filed a motion to with-
    draw on the grounds that Marks had twice refused to meet
    with him, had informed him that he did not wish to be repre-
    sented by him, and had signed a statement that he wanted to
    represent himself so he could speak and argue for himself. At
    a hearing on the motion, Marks’ counsel repeated that Marks
    wished to act as his own attorney and informed the court that
    Marks had already acted as his own attorney by “filing
    numerous pleadings on his own.” Marks complained that both
    appointed counsel were “incompetent” and stated that he
    wanted to represent himself.
    The court subsequently held a hearing, pursuant to Faretta
    v. California, 
    422 U.S. 806
     (1975), on Marks’ request to pro-
    ceed pro se. After explaining to Marks the dangers and disad-
    vantages of representing himself, the court asked Marks
    whether he still wished to represent himself and waive his
    right to counsel. Marks responded: “Oh, I think no matter
    what I can represent myself better than anybody you’ve pro-
    vided me. It’s entirely voluntary.” The court granted counsel’s
    motion to withdraw and allowed Marks to proceed pro se.
    Throughout the proceedings, Marks filed several pretrial
    motions in which he moved to dismiss the case against him
    6868               UNITED STATES v. MARKS
    for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The court
    denied the motions without a hearing.
    During a 37-day jury trial, in which Marks and two of the
    other ten defendants proceeded pro se, the government pre-
    sented evidence about AAA and Marks’ role in it. AAA was
    founded in 1996 by Keith Anderson and was administered
    and controlled by Keith and Wayne Anderson. Marks was
    AAA’s lead accountant, supervising nine other AAA-
    affiliated accountants. AAA was essentially an offshore trust
    program, based in Costa Rica, that sold “membership” to
    wealthy individuals as a mechanism to move untaxed funds
    belonging to those individuals offshore to Costa Rican bank
    accounts. The bank accounts were set up to create the appear-
    ance that these AAA clients neither owned nor controlled the
    funds, whereas in fact they did own and control them. AAA
    helped its clients repatriate the funds in various ways, giving
    them access to the untaxed funds for personal use.
    The government also presented evidence that while AAA
    purported to provide investment, tax, and financial services to
    thousands of clients, it functioned primarily to enrich the
    defendants and their co-conspirators. For example, AAA
    defrauded its own clients through a Ponzi scheme in which
    AAA promised substantial tax-free investment returns on
    funds deposited with AAA. In reality, however, AAA never
    invested those funds, and clients who believed they were
    making withdrawals from their individual investment
    accounts with AAA were in fact withdrawing funds deposited
    by other AAA clients.
    The jury found Marks guilty of one count of conspiracy to
    defraud the United States in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 371
    , one
    count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud in viola-
    tion of 
    18 U.S.C. § 371
    , twenty-three counts of aiding and
    assisting in the preparation and filing of false income tax
    returns in violation of 
    26 U.S.C. § 7206
    (2), ten counts of mail
    UNITED STATES v. MARKS                       6869
    fraud in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1341
    , and nine counts of
    wire fraud in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 1343
    .
    On April 22, 2005, the district court sentenced Marks to fif-
    teen years imprisonment followed by three years of super-
    vised release, and imposed a $25,000 fine and a $4,400
    penalty assessment. During the sentencing hearing, the gov-
    ernment stated that it was seeking restitution in the amount of
    $42,311,742 as to all defendants. However, the government
    indicated that the restitution amount could become less
    because some of the government’s letters mailed to victims of
    AAA’s fraud were being returned “address unknown.”
    Accordingly, the government requested an additional ninety
    days before the court would enter a final order of restitution.
    The court granted the government’s request but indicated both
    at the hearing and on Marks’ judgment and commitment order
    that the final restitution amount could be as much as
    $42,311,742.
    On September 26, 2005, Marks received a copy of the gov-
    ernment’s proposed amended judgment order showing a resti-
    tution amount of $30,738,395.28, with $23,942,282.28 due
    the IRS and $6,796,113 due 145 defrauded AAA clients. On
    October 14, 2005, Marks filed a written objection to the pro-
    posed amended judgment order, in which he argued, among
    other things, that the government had failed to provide evi-
    dence supporting the calculation of the restitution amount. On
    October 20, 2005, well beyond ninety days after entry of
    judgment, the district court signed and filed an amended judg-
    ment in which it ordered Marks to pay restitution in the
    amount proposed by the government.1 The court did not hold
    a hearing before filing the amended judgment.
    Marks timely appealed.
    1
    Marks and three co-defendants were held jointly and severally liable
    for the restitution amount of $30,738,395.28. Keith and Wayne Anderson
    were held jointly and severally liable for $45,794,980.05 in restitution.
    6870                UNITED STATES v. MARKS
    II.
    A.
    Marks argues that the district court violated his right to a
    fair trial and due process by treating him and the pro se defen-
    dants collectively in a manner that was biased or created the
    appearance of being biased.
    1.   Applicable Standards
    [1] “ ‘A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of
    due process.’ ” Tracey v. Palmateer, 
    341 F.3d 1037
    , 1048
    (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting In re Murchison, 
    349 U.S. 133
    , 136
    (1955)). A judge’s conduct justifies a new trial if the record
    shows actual bias or leaves an abiding impression that the jury
    perceived an appearance of advocacy or partiality. See United
    States v. Parker, 
    241 F.3d 1114
    , 1119 (9th Cir. 2001); United
    States v. Scholl, 
    166 F.3d 964
    , 977 (9th Cir. 1999). However,
    “[a] federal judge has broad discretion in supervising trials,
    and his or her behavior during trial justifies reversal only if
    [he or she] abuses that discretion.” United States v. Laurins,
    
    857 F.2d 529
    , 537 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted).
    The Supreme Court has recognized that certain courtroom
    practices are so inherently prejudicial that they deprive the
    defendant of a fair trial. Carey v. Musladin, 
    549 U.S. 70
    , 
    127 S. Ct. 649
    , 651 (2006). “[T]he Constitution prohibits any
    courtroom arrangement or procedure that ‘undermines the
    presumption of innocence and the related fairness of the fact-
    finding process.’ ” United States v. Larson, 
    495 F.3d 1094
    (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc), adopting in part United States v.
    Larson, 
    460 F.3d 1200
    , 1214 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Deck
    v. Missouri, 
    544 U.S. 622
    , 630 (2005)). “The presumption is
    so undermined when the practice creates ‘an unacceptable risk
    . . . of impermissible factors coming into play.’ ” Larson, 
    460 F.3d at 1214
     (quoting Estelle v. Williams, 
    425 U.S. 501
    , 505
    (1976)).
    UNITED STATES v. MARKS                    6871
    2.   Analysis
    Marks bases his argument on what he contends are six
    occurrences in which the district court exhibited bias against
    him or against the pro se defendants collectively.
    [2] First, Marks points to the fact that in the courtroom the
    pro se defendants were seated at a table behind the table at
    which the represented defendants and their attorneys were
    seated, which Marks contends indicated to the jury that the
    pro se defendants were “second rate, and literally second-tier
    defendants in the eyes of the court.” However, Marks does not
    contend, and the record does not support, that the district
    court, rather than the parties themselves, decided on that seat-
    ing arrangement. Nor did Marks object to the seating arrange-
    ment during trial.
    In any event, even if the district court did impose the seat-
    ing arrangement, it did not violate Marks’ constitutional
    rights. In Larson, we surveyed the case law addressing court-
    room arrangements and observed that “our core concern in
    this area is to avoid any procedure that undermines the pre-
    sumption of innocence by conveying a message to the jury
    that the defendant is guilty.” Larson, 
    460 F.3d at 1215
    . We
    went on to hold that the district court did not violate the two
    defendants’ constitutional rights when it denied a request that
    the court seat them at the counsel table and instead seated
    them directly behind their two attorneys. 
    Id. at 1213, 1215-16
    .
    We found that the jury most likely drew no impermissible
    inference from the arrangement and “may have just as easily
    inferred that the arrangement simply ameliorated overcrowd-
    ing at the counsel table, or that it facilitated a more orderly
    and decorous courtroom.” 
    Id. at 1215
    . Accordingly, we con-
    cluded that the arrangement “in no way conveyed a message
    of [the defendants’] guilt and it therefore cannot be consid-
    ered either ‘inherently prejudicial’ or prejudicial in this partic-
    ular case.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Holbrook v. Flynn, 
    475 U.S. 560
    , 569
    (1986)).
    6872                UNITED STATES v. MARKS
    [3] We reach the same conclusion here. The trial involved
    ten defendants and seven defense attorneys, so it was likely
    impossible to seat all parties at the same counsel table. Hav-
    ing the represented defendants and their attorneys sit at the
    front table made sense given the likelihood that an attorney,
    rather than an unrepresented defendant, would make more
    evidentiary objections at trial. Accordingly, we are confident
    that the seating arrangement was simply taken for granted by
    the jury and we conclude that it was not prejudicial to Marks.
    [4] Second and third, Marks points to the fact that the dis-
    trict court cut short his opening statement to the jury and tem-
    porarily halted his cross-examination of a government
    witness. However, the record demonstrates that the court’s
    actions were justified by Marks’ incessant discussion of (often
    frivolous) legal issues that were not for the jury to decide and
    by his combative interactions with the court.
    Shortly after commencing his opening statement, Marks
    began to address such issues as whether the court had jurisdic-
    tion over him, whether it was lawful for an undercover agent
    to record conversations without the consent of all parties,
    whether the IRS had legal authority to execute search war-
    rants or was a sham entity, whether the government’s “police
    officer authority” is supported by statute, and whether the
    United States has jurisdiction over a house that one owns. In
    response, the court sustained repeated objections by the gov-
    ernment and by several of Marks’ co-defendants. The court
    also instructed Marks on several occasions that he should tell
    the jury only about evidence he intended to elicit at trial, that
    the information Marks was citing was not admissible into evi-
    dence, and that the issues he was raising were not for the jury
    to decide. Nonetheless, Marks continued to address legal
    issues in his opening statement and signaled through his argu-
    mentative demeanor towards the court that he had no inten-
    tion of stopping. Finally, after sustaining objections ten times,
    the court told Marks to “take a seat” and thus ended his open-
    ing statement.
    UNITED STATES v. MARKS                    6873
    The court also temporarily halted Marks’ cross-
    examination of a government witness, IRS Agent Dowling,
    because Marks, again, sought to make legal arguments to the
    jury. It is apparent from the record that the purpose of Marks’
    cross-examination was to demonstrate to the jury that the IRS
    had no legal authority under the laws of the United States and
    that, accordingly, Agent Dowling had no authority to investi-
    gate criminal matters in California. The court sustained the
    government’s repeated objections on the ground that Marks’
    questions were irrelevant. When Marks nonetheless continued
    to ask questions pertaining to the authority of the IRS and
    Agent Dowling, the court informed Marks that his cross-
    examination was finished.
    However, the next day, when Marks sought guidance from
    the court about the appropriate bounds of his participation in
    the trial, the court explained to Marks that he had impermiss-
    ibly questioned Agent Dowling about issues that were not for
    the jury to decide and that on cross-examination he instead
    should ask fact-based questions, such as whether a conversa-
    tion had taken place or whether something had been discussed
    in a particular conversation. The court subsequently permitted
    Marks to resume his cross-examination of Agent Dowling.
    District courts have broad power to ensure that a trial pro-
    ceeds in a proper manner. As the Supreme Court explained in
    Geders v. United States,
    The trial judge must meet situations as they arise and
    to do this must have broad power to cope with the
    complexities and contingencies inherent in the
    adversary process. To this end, he may determine
    generally the order in which parties will adduce
    proof; his determination will be reviewed only for
    abuse of discretion. Within limits, the judge may
    control the scope of rebuttal testimony; may refuse
    to allow cumulative, repetitive, or irrelevant testi-
    mony; and may control the scope of examination of
    6874                UNITED STATES v. MARKS
    witnesses. If truth and fairness are not to be sacri-
    ficed, the judge must exert substantial control over
    the proceedings.
    
    425 U.S. 80
    , 86-87 (1976) (citations omitted). Accordingly,
    “[t]he standard for reversing a verdict because of general judi-
    cial misconduct during trial is rather stringent . . . . We must
    determine whether the district court’s inquiry rendered the
    trial unfair.” Kennedy v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 
    901 F.2d 702
    , 709 (9th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).
    [5] In ending Marks’ opening statement and temporarily
    halting his cross-examination of Agent Dowling, the district
    court acted within its discretion to ensure that Marks would
    abide by the rules of evidence and rules of procedure, would
    not expose the jury to constant irrelevant argumentation, and
    would follow the directions of the court. At the same time, the
    district court prudently excused the jury from the courtroom
    before reproving Marks about his conduct—which included
    an “outburst” when the court halted Marks’ cross-examination
    of Agent Dowling—and patiently explained to Marks the
    appropriate bounds of his participation when Marks
    approached the court for guidance. Accordingly, we are per-
    suaded that the district court’s actions neither showed actual
    bias nor created the appearance of bias. See Parker, 
    241 F.3d at 1119
     (holding that court did not show actual bias or create
    the appearance of bias despite intervening at numerous points
    during the trial by asking questions on behalf of the govern-
    ment when the prosecutor asked leading or otherwise objec-
    tionable questions); Cox v. Treadway, 
    75 F.3d 230
    , 237 (6th
    Cir. 1996) (holding that court did not abuse discretion by
    interrupting opening statement three times to admonish coun-
    sel about arguing her case and by cutting opening statement
    short without prior notice); United States v. Mostella, 
    802 F.2d 358
     (9th Cir. 1986) (holding that defendant received fair
    trial despite court’s interruption of defense counsel’s exami-
    nation and extensive questioning of witness); cf. United States
    v. Carreon, 
    572 F.2d 683
     (9th Cir. 1978) (holding that court
    UNITED STATES v. MARKS                   6875
    deprived defendant of fair trial where it repeatedly interrupted
    defense counsel’s opening statement and closing argument
    although objections had not been made by prosecutor; made
    and sustained its own objections to several of defense coun-
    sel’s questions; and treated defense counsel in a manner that
    demonstrated its low opinion of the defense).
    [6] Fourth, Marks points to the fact that the district court
    instructed the jury that statements of facts made by pro se
    defendants in their opening statements or in questions during
    the examination of witnesses are not evidence. Marks does
    not dispute that the instruction was a correct statement of law
    but contends that it “singled out” and “deprecated” the pro se
    defendants.
    The court gave the instruction immediately after one of
    Marks’ pro se co-defendants made an unsworn statement of
    fact during his cross-examination of Agent Dowling by attest-
    ing to his own belief that a certain amount of money he had
    received had come from a lawful source. After sustaining an
    objection to the co-defendant’s statement, the court instructed
    the jury as follows:
    This might be an appropriate point to advise the jury
    that in the opening statements of the pro se defen-
    dants — that is the defendants that are representing
    themselves — any questions they ask they might
    make statements of fact.
    The only fact that is in evidence is the facts that
    come from the witness stand. Statements of fact in
    opening statements or in questions by the pro se
    defendants are not evidence. Questions being asked
    during the course of the case either by attorneys or
    by the pro se defendants are not evidence.
    The evidence is what you hear from the witness
    stand and the exhibits that are admitted into evidence
    or any stipulations that may be entered into.
    6876                    UNITED STATES v. MARKS
    [7] Even assuming that the court’s instruction “singled out”
    the pro se defendants,2 the court acted within its discretion in
    giving it. The instruction was appropriate in light of Marks’
    and the co-defendant’s conduct during opening statements
    and cross-examination, and it neither exhibited actual bias nor
    created the appearance of bias towards the pro se defendants.
    [8] Fifth, Marks points to the fact that the court declined to
    hold a hearing on his repeated motions to dismiss the case
    against him for lack of jurisdiction. However, as discussed
    below, the court was not required to hold a hearing because
    Marks’ motions were frivolous. While the court, in explaining
    to Marks that he could not raise jurisdictional issues in his
    cross-examination of Agent Dowling, stated that it would
    eventually listen to Marks’ jurisdictional arguments, we are
    not convinced that the court’s failure to ultimately hold a
    hearing reflected bias against Marks. Instead, we assume that
    the court simply recognized the frivolousness of Marks’ juris-
    dictional arguments and concluded that a hearing was, after
    all, not necessary to properly rule on Marks’ motions.
    [9] Finally, Marks points to the fact that the district court
    declined to submit his proposed jury instructions to the jury.3
    However, to the extent that Marks’ proposed instructions
    were correct statements of law, their substance was contained
    in the court’s own instructions. A court need not use the pre-
    cise language of jury instructions proposed by the defendant
    in order for its instructions to be adequate. See United States
    v. Bussell, 
    414 F.3d 1048
    , 1058 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that
    court did not abuse discretion because although court’s jury
    2
    We note that the district court’s instruction did not exclusively address
    statements by pro se defendants but also informed the jury that questions
    asked by attorneys are not evidence.
    3
    Marks also contends that the district court “refused to even look at [his]
    proposed instructions.” However, the record reveals only that the court
    declined Marks’ request that it expressly identify each of his proposed
    instructions.
    UNITED STATES v. MARKS                  6877
    instructions differed from defendant’s proposed instructions
    in their precise formulation, they adequately presented her
    defense). With respect to Marks’ proposed instructions per-
    taining to his arguments that the court lacked jurisdiction and
    the government lacked authority to try him for the alleged
    offenses, the court was not required to give those instructions
    to the jury because they were not relevant to the issues that
    the jury would decide. See United States v. Foppe, 
    993 F.2d 1444
    , 1452 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that court’s failure to give
    defendant’s proposed jury instruction did not prejudice defen-
    dant because he was not entitled to an irrelevant jury instruc-
    tion). Accordingly, the district court’s decision not to read all
    of Marks’ proposed instructions to the jury was proper and
    does not demonstrate bias.
    [10] In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion
    in supervising the trial in the manner that it did, and its
    actions neither revealed actual bias nor created the appearance
    of bias towards Marks or towards the pro se defendants col-
    lectively. We therefore conclude that Marks was not denied
    a fair trial.
    B.
    Marks argues that the district court lacked subject matter
    jurisdiction over the prosecution and lacked personal jurisdic-
    tion over him because the government failed to meet its bur-
    den of establishing jurisdiction once Marks challenged it.
    Marks also argues that the district court committed reversible
    error because it summarily denied Marks’ challenges to the
    court’s jurisdiction without holding a hearing.
    1.   Applicable Standards
    Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Kok-
    konen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 
    511 U.S. 375
    , 377 (1994);
    United States v. Van Cauwenberghe, 
    934 F.2d 1048
    , 1059
    (9th Cir. 1991). “They possess only that power authorized by
    6878                   UNITED STATES v. MARKS
    Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen, 
    511 U.S. at 377
    . The
    burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party
    invoking federal jurisdiction. See DaimlerChrysler v. Cuno,
    
    547 U.S. 332
    , 342 (2006); United States v. Sumner, 
    226 F.3d 1005
    , 1010 (9th Cir. 2000).
    We review de novo a district court’s assumption of juris-
    diction. United States v. Bennett, 
    147 F.3d 912
    , 913 (9th Cir.
    1998); see United States v. Anderson, 
    472 F.3d 662
    , 666 (9th
    Cir. 2006) (“Jurisdictional issues are reviewed de novo[.]”).
    We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s deci-
    sion whether to hold a hearing on a motion. See United States
    v. Hernandez, 
    424 F.3d 1056
    , 1058 (9th Cir. 2005) (motion
    to suppress); United States v. Bussel, 
    414 F.3d 1048
    , 1054
    (9th Cir. 2005) (motion for a new trial); United States v.
    Smith, 
    282 F.3d 759
    , 764 (9th Cir. 2002) (motion to substitute
    counsel); United States v. Lazarevich, 
    147 F.3d 1061
    , 1065
    (9th Cir. 1998) (motion to dismiss indictment).
    2.       Analysis
    [11] The government here met its burden of establishing
    both subject matter and personal jurisdiction. Under 
    18 U.S.C. § 3231
    , federal district courts have exclusive original jurisdic-
    tion over “all offenses against the laws of the United States.”
    Those offenses include the offenses with which the govern-
    ment charged Marks in its second superseding indictment.
    Accordingly, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction
    in this case.4 See United States v. Williams, 
    341 U.S. 58
    , 65-
    66 (1951); United States v. Studley, 
    783 F.2d 934
    , 937 (9th
    4
    The second superseding indictment alleges that Marks and the other
    defendants committed the offenses in the Western District of Washington
    and elsewhere. Marks does not contest that the District Court for the West-
    ern District of Washington was the proper venue for his prosecution. See
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3232
    ; Fed. R. Crim. P. 18 (“Unless a statute of these rules per-
    mit otherwise, the government must prosecute an offense in a district
    where the offense was committed.”).
    UNITED STATES v. MARKS                  6879
    Cir. 1986). Likewise, the district court had personal jurisdic-
    tion over Marks by virtue of Marks’ having been brought
    before it on a federal indictment charging a violation of fed-
    eral law. See United States v. Rendon, 
    354 F.3d 1320
    , 1326
    (11th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Alvarez-Machain,
    
    504 U.S. 655
    , 659-70 (1992)); see also United States v. Lus-
    sier, 
    929 F.2d 25
    , 27 (1st Cir. 1991) (“It is well settled that
    a district court has personal jurisdiction over any party who
    appears before it, regardless of how his appearance was
    obtained.”); United States v. Warren, 
    610 F.2d 680
    , 684 n.8
    (9th Cir. 1980) (same).
    [12] Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion
    by not holding a hearing on Marks’ motions contesting the
    court’s jurisdiction. Marks’ jurisdictional challenges were
    frivolous. For example, Marks argued that the district court
    was a “federal zone” district court—one applying laws passed
    by Congress to citizens of the United States—as opposed to
    a “state zone” district court, and that because he was a “citi-
    zen and resident of the Sovereign State of California,” and
    thus a “state zone” citizen, the court lacked jurisdiction over
    him. Likewise, Marks argued that 
    18 U.S.C. § 3231
     gives
    jurisdiction over offenses against the laws of the United States
    only to an “Article III Constitutional district court of the
    United States” but not to a “USDC” such as the District Court
    for the Western District of Washington. Because those argu-
    ments were entirely without merit, the district court acted
    within its discretion in denying Marks’ motions without a
    hearing. See, e.g., United States v. Sutter, 
    340 F.3d 1022
    ,
    1026-27 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that district court properly
    denied defendant’s suppression motion without a hearing
    where defendant’s argument was entirely without merit).
    C.
    Marks argues that the district court’s restitution order is
    6880                       UNITED STATES v. MARKS
    invalid because it was entered more than ninety days after
    sentencing, in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3664
    (d)(5).5
    1.       Applicable Standards
    “ ‘A restitution order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion,
    provided that it is within the bounds of the statutory frame-
    work. Factual findings supporting an order of restitution are
    reviewed for clear error. The legality of an order of restitution
    is reviewed de novo.’ ” United States v. Gordon, 
    393 F.3d 1044
    , 1051 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting United States v. Stod-
    dard, 
    150 F.3d 1140
    , 1147 (9th Cir. 1998)).
    2.       Analysis
    [13] The ninety-day requirement of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3664
    (d)(5)
    is part of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996
    (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A - 3664, which makes restitu-
    tion mandatory, without regard to a defendant’s economic sit-
    uation, to identifiable victims who have suffered physical
    injury or pecuniary loss from particular crimes, including
    offenses involving fraud or deceit. 
    18 U.S.C. § 3663
    (A)(a)(1),
    (c), § 3664(f)(1)(A); United States v. Moreland, 
    509 F.3d 1201
    , 1222 (9th Cir. 2007).
    5
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3664
    , which sets forth the procedure for issuing and
    enforcing an order of restitution, provides in relevant part:
    (d)(5) If the victim’s losses are not ascertainable by the date
    that is 10 days prior to sentencing, the attorney for the Govern-
    ment or the probation officer shall so inform the court, and the
    court shall set a date for the final determination of the victim’s
    losses, not to exceed 90 days after sentencing. If the victim sub-
    sequently discovers further losses, the victim shall have 60 days
    after discovery of those losses in which to petition the court for
    an amended restitution order. Such order may be granted only
    upon a showing of good cause for the failure to include such
    losses in the initial claim for restitutionary relief.
    
    18 U.S.C. § 3664
    (d)(5).
    UNITED STATES v. MARKS                   6881
    [14] “The ‘intended beneficiaries’ of the MVRA’s proce-
    dural mechanisms ‘are the victims, not the victimizers.’ ”
    Moreland, 
    509 F.3d at 1223
     (quoting United States v. Grimes,
    
    173 F.3d 634
    , 639 (7th Cir. 1999)). Thus, we have recognized
    that “ ‘the purpose behind the statutory ninety-day limit on the
    determination of victims’ losses is not to protect defendants
    from drawn-out sentencing proceedings or to establish final-
    ity; rather it is to protect crime victims from the willful dissi-
    pation of defendants’ assets.’ ” Moreland, 
    509 F.3d at
    1223-
    24 (quoting United States v. Cienfuegos, 
    462 F.3d 1160
    , 1163
    (9th Cir. 2006)). Accordingly, we have concluded that “be-
    cause the procedural requirements of section 3664 were
    designed to protect victims, not defendants, the failure to
    comply with them is harmless error absent actual prejudice to
    the defendant.’ ” Moreland, 
    509 F.3d at 1224-25
     (quoting
    Cienfuegos, 
    462 F.3d at 1163
    ).
    Here, it is undisputed that the district court failed to comply
    with the ninety-day requirement of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3664
    (d)(5).
    However, we conclude that the error was harmless because
    Marks has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced. See
    Cienfuegos, 
    462 F.3d at 1162-63
    .
    While Marks contends that the delay in entering the restitu-
    tion order affected his rights to be present when the order was
    entered and to contest the restitution amount, he fails to
    explain why that is so. Nor does Marks contend that he suf-
    fered any other prejudice from the delay in entering the resti-
    tution order. For example, Marks does not claim that any
    documents or witnesses had become unavailable after the
    ninety-day period elapsed, or that his financial status had
    changed. See Moreland, 
    509 F.3d at 1225
    .
    Moreover, Marks was provided “the functional equivalent
    of the notice required under section 3664(d)(5),” Cienfuegos,
    
    462 F.3d at 1163
    , because the district court informed Marks
    orally at the sentencing hearing and in the written judgment
    that he would have to pay a substantial amount of restitution,
    6882                   UNITED STATES v. MARKS
    see Moreland, 
    509 F.3d at 1225
    . In fact, the amount of restitu-
    tion that Marks was ultimately ordered to pay ($30,738,395)
    was substantially less than the amount initially cited by the
    district court ($42,311,742).
    [15] Thus, Marks was not prejudiced by the delay in enter-
    ing the restitution order. Accordingly, the district court’s error
    in failing to comply with the ninety-day requirement of
    § 3664(d)(5) was harmless.
    D.
    Marks argues that the district court’s ex parte entry of the
    restitution order violated his right to be present at a critical
    stage of the proceeding as well as his right to allocute, i.e.,
    speak on his own behalf, at sentencing.
    1.       Applicable Standards
    “A defendant has the right to be present at every stage of
    the trial,” and that right is “both constitutional and statutory.”
    United States v. Rosales-Rodriguez, 
    289 F.3d 1106
    , 1109 (9th
    Cir. 2002). “The constitutional right, which is the right to be
    present at every ‘critical stage’ of the trial, is based in the
    Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause and the Sixth Amend-
    ment Right to Confrontation Clause.” 
    Id.
     (citation omitted). If
    the denial of the right to be present rises to the level of a con-
    stitutional violation, then “the burden is on the prosecution to
    prove that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    
    Id.
     A defendant also has a statutory right to be present at
    “every trial stage” as well as at “sentencing.” Fed. R. Crim.
    P. 43(a).6 If the denial of the right to be present represents
    6
    Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 43(a) provides in relevant part that
    “the defendant must be present at: (1) the initial appearance, the initial
    arraignment, and the plea; (2) every trial stage, including jury impanel-
    ment and the return of the verdict; and (3) sentencing.” Fed. R. Crim. P.
    43(a).
    UNITED STATES v. MARKS                         6883
    only a statutory violation, then “the defendant’s absence is
    harmless error if ‘there is no reasonable possibility that preju-
    dice resulted from the absence.’ ” Rosales-Rodriguez, 
    289 F.3d at 1109
     (quoting United States v. Kupau, 
    781 F.2d 740
    ,
    743 (9th Cir. 1986)).
    [16] A defendant also has the right, before the court
    imposes a sentence, to “speak or present any information to
    mitigate the sentence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(i)(4)(A)(ii).7 We
    review the district court’s failure to afford a defendant the
    right to speak on his own behalf at sentencing for harmless
    error. United States v. Gunning, 
    401 F.3d 1145
    , 1147 (9th Cir.
    2005); United States v. Mack, 
    200 F.3d 653
    , 657 (9th Cir.
    2002).
    2.       Analysis
    Marks contends that because restitution is part of the crimi-
    nal sentence, United States v. Ramilo, 
    986 F.2d 333
    , 336 (9th
    Cir. 1993), the district court’s entry of the restitution order
    was part of “sentencing,” at which he had the right to be pres-
    ent and the right to speak on his own behalf. Assuming, with-
    out deciding, that the district court’s failure to provide Marks
    with an opportunity to be present and to speak on his own
    behalf when it entered the restitution order violated Marks’
    statutory or constitutional rights, we nevertheless find in favor
    of the government because any such violation was harmless
    error.
    [17] Marks contends that the district court’s failure to pro-
    vide him with an opportunity to be present and to speak on his
    own behalf was not harmless because it prevented him from
    7
    Federal Rule of Criminal procedure 32(i)(4)(A) provides in relevant
    part that, “[b]efore imposing sentence, the court must . . . (ii) address the
    defendant personally in order to permit the defendant to speak or present
    any information to mitigate the sentence . . . .” Fed. R. Crim. P.
    32(i)(4)(A)(ii).
    6884                   UNITED STATES v. MARKS
    contesting the calculation of the restitution amount.8 How-
    ever, the record reveals that Marks was not so prevented: after
    the government provided Marks, more than three weeks
    before entry of the final restitution order, with a proposed
    amended judgment setting forth what would become the final
    restitution amount, Marks filed a written objection with the
    district court in which he complained that the government had
    failed to provide evidence supporting its calculation of the
    amount of restitution due the IRS and the 145 defrauded AAA
    clients. Marks fails to explain what objections to the calcula-
    tion of the restitution amount he could have made that he did
    not already make in his written objection.
    [18] Accordingly, we find that there is no reasonable possi-
    bility that prejudice resulted from any error by the district
    court and that any such error was harmless beyond a reason-
    able doubt. See Gunning, 
    401 F.3d at 1147
    ; Rosales-
    Rodriguez, 
    289 F.3d at 1109
    .
    E.
    Marks argues that the district court erred in failing to sua
    sponte examine Marks’ competence to stand trial.
    1.       Applicable Standards
    [19] “ ‘Due process requires a trial court to hold a compe-
    tency hearing sua sponte whenever the evidence before it
    raises a reasonable doubt whether a defendant is mentally
    8
    Marks also contends that the district court’s failure to provide him an
    opportunity to be present when it entered the restitution order prevented
    him from objecting to the court’s entry of the order more than ninety days
    after sentencing in violation of 
    18 U.S.C. § 3664
    (d)(5). However, as
    explained above, the district court’s violation of § 3664(d)(5) was harm-
    less error. Accordingly, any objection Marks might have made before the
    district court would have been properly denied. See Cienfuegos, 
    462 F.3d at 1162
     (reviewing for harmless error because defendant timely objected
    to failure to follow requirements of § 3664).
    UNITED STATES v. MARKS                    6885
    competent.’ ” United States v. Mitchell, 
    502 F.3d 931
    , 986
    (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Miles v. Stainer, 
    108 F.3d 1109
    , 1112
    (9th Cir. 1997)). “ ‘The substantive standard for determining
    competence to stand trial is whether [the defendant] had suffi-
    cient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reason-
    able degree of rational understanding[,] and a rational as well
    as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.’ ”
    United States v. Fernandez, 
    388 F.3d 1199
    , 1251 (9th Cir.
    2004) (alterations in original) (quoting Torres v. Prunty, 
    223 F.3d 1103
    , 1106 (9th Cir. 2000)), amended by 
    425 F.3d 1248
    (9th Cir. 2005).
    “On review, ‘[the] inquiry is not whether the trial court
    could have found the defendant either competent or incompe-
    tent, nor whether [the reviewing court] would find the defen-
    dant incompetent . . . .’ ” Mitchell, 
    502 F.3d at 986
    (alterations in original) (quoting Chavez v. United States, 
    656 F.2d 512
    , 515-16 (9th Cir. 1981)). “Rather, the record is
    reviewed ‘to see if the evidence of incompetence was such
    that a reasonable judge would be expected to experience a
    genuine doubt respecting the defendant’s competence.’ ” 
    Id.
    (quoting Chavez, 
    656 F.2d at 516
    ). We have held that there
    must be “substantial evidence of incompetence.” Deere v.
    Woodford, 
    339 F.3d 1084
    , 1086 (9th Cir. 2003). Among the
    factors we consider to determine whether there was sufficient
    evidence of incompetence are “ ‘the defendant’s irrational
    behavior, his demeanor in court, and any prior medical opin-
    ions on his competence.’ ” Fernandez, 
    388 F.3d at 1251
    (quoting Miles, 
    108 F.3d at 1112
    ).
    Where, as here, the issue is raised for the first time on
    appeal, we review a district court’s decision not to sua sponte
    order a competency hearing for plain error. See Fernandez,
    
    388 F.3d at 1250-51
    . “Plain error is ‘(1) error, (2) that is plain,
    and (3) that affect[s] substantial rights.’ ” United States v.
    Thornton, 
    511 F.3d 1221
    , 1225 n.2 (9th Cir. 2008) (alterations
    in original) (quoting Johnson v. United States, 
    520 U.S. 461
    ,
    467 (1997)). “If these conditions are met, an appellate court
    6886                UNITED STATES v. MARKS
    may exercise its discretion to correct the error ‘only if (4) the
    error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public repu-
    tation of judicial proceedings.’ ” 
    Id.
     (quoting Johnson, 
    520 U.S. at 467
    ).
    2.   Analysis
    In support of his argument that the district court should
    have ordered a competency hearing, Marks points to his
    courtroom demeanor, his “doggedness” in arguing that the
    district court had no jurisdiction over him, and his second
    appointed counsel’s representation, in filing a motion for
    Marks to proceed pro se, that he had no relationship with
    Marks that could assist him in representing Marks. It is true
    that Marks sometimes was rude to the court, that he repeat-
    edly argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over him, and
    that he refused to work with, and consider himself represented
    by, appointed counsel. However, the record demonstrates that
    these acts simply reflected Marks’ claimed beliefs that the
    court lacked legal authority over him and could not be trusted
    to appoint effective and neutral counsel to help him.
    [20] While Marks’ claimed beliefs may have been unortho-
    dox and wrongheaded, they were not indicative of an inability
    to understand the proceedings against him or conduct his own
    defense. Despite sometimes being disrespectful to the court,
    Marks generally followed courtroom rules, was polite in
    addressing the jury and witnesses, and asked pertinent ques-
    tions on cross-examination that reflected his understanding of
    the case and that could have been effective in undercutting the
    government’s case against him. Accordingly, we conclude
    that Marks’ conduct does not constitute substantial evidence
    of incompetence to stand trial. See Davis v. Woodford, 
    384 F.3d 628
    , 645 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Although there is little doubt
    that Davis was recalcitrant and acted in ways that were detri-
    mental to his case, his interactions with the trial judge indi-
    cated that he understood what was at stake during the penalty
    phase and could make informed decisions.”); United States v.
    UNITED STATES v. MARKS                  
    6887 Mills, 597
     F.2d 693, 699 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that district
    court was not required to sua sponte inquire into defendant’s
    competency where defendant was “alert, rational and respon-
    sive throughout the trial”); see also United States v. Auen, 
    864 F.2d 4
    , 5 (2d Cir. 1988) (upholding finding of competency
    where defendant’s odd behavior “arose out of his position
    with respect to the tax law rather than mental disease” and
    where defendant “was able to understand the nature and con-
    sequences of the proceeding against him, and had he so cho-
    sen, could have cooperated with counsel”).
    The cases on which Marks relies are distinguishable. In
    Chavez v. United States, 
    656 F.2d 512
     (9th Cir. 1981), the
    evidence of incompetence included a history of antisocial
    behavior and treatment for mental illness; several emotional
    outbursts, one of which resulted in the defendant’s removal
    from the courtroom; a previous psychiatric finding of insanity
    based on psychoneurosis and the use of drugs; the defendant’s
    firing of his attorneys; and an inference that the defendant had
    not attempted to plea bargain. 
    Id. at 519
    . In United States v.
    Williams, 
    113 F.3d 1155
     (10th Cir. 1997), the defendant, who
    had a history of drug addiction and was taking an antidepres-
    sant, repeatedly interrupted the court, was prone to making
    outbursts, was at one point crying and unable to control her-
    self, announced that she was firing her attorney, and, on the
    second day of her two-day trial was “out of control.” 
    Id. at 1157-58
    . While Marks did reject the assistance of two
    appointed attorneys and, during his cross-examination of
    Agent Dowling, had what the court described as an “out-
    burst,” Marks was by no means “out of control,” displayed no
    pattern of antisocial behavior throughout the 37-day trial, has
    presented no evidence of a history of mental illness, and has
    pointed to no evidence that he did not attempt to plea bargain.
    [21] Accordingly, the district court did not plainly err in not
    sua sponte examining Marks’ competency.
    6888                UNITED STATES v. MARKS
    F.
    Marks argues that the district court, in allowing Marks to
    proceed pro se, applied an incorrect standard in determining
    whether he had waived his right to counsel. Marks further
    argues that, even if the court applied the correct standard, he
    did not waive his right to counsel.
    1.   Applicable Standards
    “When a defendant requests to proceed pro se, a district
    court may only grant the request after determining that the
    defendant ‘knowingly and intelligently’ waived the right to
    counsel.” Moreland, 
    509 F.3d at 1208
     (quoting Faretta, 
    422 U.S. at 835
    ). “The burden of proving the legality of the
    waiver is on the government.” United States v. Farhad, 
    190 F.3d 1097
    , 1099 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted). “A waiver
    of counsel will be considered knowing and intelligent only if
    the defendant is made aware of (1) the nature of the charges
    against him; (2) the possible penalties; and (3) the dangers
    and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record
    will establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and his choice
    is made with eyes open.’ ” 
    Id.
     (citation omitted).
    Whether a defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelli-
    gently waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a
    mixed question of law and fact and is reviewed de novo.
    Moreland, 
    509 F.3d at 1209
    ; United States v. Robinson, 
    913 F.2d 712
    , 714 (9th Cir. 1990). A district court’s factual find-
    ing that a waiver was unequivocal is “reversible only if
    clearly erroneous.” See United States v. Kienenberger, 
    13 F.3d 1354
    , 1356 (9th Cir. 1994).
    2.   Analysis
    First, Marks argues that the district court applied an incor-
    rect standard for waiver of the right to counsel because it con-
    cluded, in its order granting Marks’ motion to proceed pro se,
    UNITED STATES v. MARKS                 6889
    that Marks had “knowingly, intelligently and unequivocally
    asserted his right to self-representation.” Marks contends that
    whether he asserted his right to self-representation is not the
    same question as whether he waived his right to counsel.
    However, at the Faretta hearing, the district court made the
    specific oral finding that Marks had “knowingly waived his
    right to counsel.” Accordingly, we are satisfied that the court
    applied the correct standard.
    Second, Marks argues that any waiver of the right to coun-
    sel was not “voluntary and intelligent” in light of the “sub-
    stantial doubts” as to his competence to stand trial.
    Initially, we do not agree that there were “substantial
    doubts” as to Marks’ competence. We have already concluded
    that there was no substantial evidence of incompetence, and
    we find no substantial doubts as to Marks’ competence either.
    Moreover, we conclude that the record affirmatively dem-
    onstrates that Marks’ waiver of the right to counsel was vol-
    untary, knowing, and intelligent. At arraignment, the district
    court advised Marks of the charges and possible penalties
    against him. At the Faretta hearing, following several
    motions by Marks to proceed pro se, the court explained to
    Marks the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.
    In addition, Marks’ second appointed counsel testified at the
    hearing on his motion to withdraw that he had spoken to
    Marks about the elements and the nature of the charges, about
    the possible penalties, and about the disadvantages of self-
    representation.
    Furthermore, at the Faretta hearing, the district court cau-
    tioned Marks that, in its opinion, it was unwise of Marks to
    represent himself and that he would be better off being repre-
    sented by a trained attorney. The court also informed Marks
    that he would be required to abide by the rules of evidence
    and that the court would not advise him how to try his case.
    Marks repeatedly indicated that he understood what the court
    6890                UNITED STATES v. MARKS
    was telling him. When the court finally asked Marks whether
    he still wished to represent himself and give up his right to be
    represented by counsel, Marks responded that he could repre-
    sent himself better than any attorney appointed by the court
    and that his request to proceed pro se was “entirely volun-
    tary.”
    [22] We conclude that Marks’ waiver of his right to counsel
    was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. Our conclusion is
    bolstered by the fact that Marks previously rejected two court-
    appointed attorneys and that the second attorney expressed his
    belief that Marks was a “fairly well-educated man” who
    “want[ed] to be his own attorney” and who had already acted
    as such by filing numerous pleadings on his own.
    While at earlier hearings Marks had stated that he wanted
    “effective assistance of counsel” and complained that both
    appointed attorneys were “incompetent,” he eventually made
    it clear that he would rather proceed pro se than be repre-
    sented by any attorney appointed by the court. Thus, while we
    suspect that Marks initially “engaged in game playing, typical
    of a tax evader, in his responses to the court as to whether he
    waived his right to counsel,” Marks “finally answered
    unequivocally that he did not want a lawyer.” United States
    v. Hardy, 
    941 F.2d 893
    , 896 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the
    district court did not err in allowing Marks to proceed pro se.
    III.
    We affirm Marks’ conviction and sentence and affirm the
    judgment.
    AFFIRMED.