# United States v. Brown

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · December 12, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9909339

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 12, 2023
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Direct Criminal
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9909339

## Opinion text

Case: 23-10464 Document: 00516998652 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/12/2023

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 23-10464
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ December 12, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
United States of America, Clerk

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Keidric Kei Von Brown,

Defendant—Appellant.
______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CR-146-1
______________________________

Before King, Haynes, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Keidric Kei Von Brown has appealed his conviction following a bench
trial of possession of a machinegun. Brown asserts that the district court
erred in permitting him to represent himself during the bench trial.
Criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to counsel at
critical stages of criminal proceedings against them. See United States v.

_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10464 Document: 00516998652 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/12/2023

No. 23-10464

Mesquiti, 854 F.3d 267, 271 (5th Cir. 2017). Defendants likewise have a right
of self-representation. See Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 809, 813-14 (1975).
Our review is de novo. See Mesquiti, 854 F.3d at 271. Here, the record
reflects that Brown’s waiver of his right to counsel was clear and unequivocal,
see Faretta, 422 U.S. at 813-14, and the district court ensured that the waiver
was knowing and intelligent, see Mesquiti, 854 F.3d at 272-74; United States v.
Davis, 269 F.3d 514, 518 (5th Cir. 2001).
The judgment is AFFIRMED.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9909339. Public record. Not legal advice.