the defendant in Faretta never wavered from his position that he sought to represent himself. During the short period of time that the district court entertained Evans’s request to represent himself, Evans was steadfast. Before that assertion, Evans indeed sought replacement counsel, and after the court refused his request for self-representation, Evans retreated to his prior calls of ineffective assistance. However, this is not the type of vacillation that would preclude us from determining that the request for self-representation was unequivocal. That Ganguli represented Evans at the sentencing hearing, seemingly with Evans’s consent, does not amount to a presumption of acquiescence to the district court’s denial of his request for self-representation. See Moore, 531 F.3d at 403 (<HOLDING>). The district court made clear that Evans
holding that a defendant has a right to proceed pro se at trial holding that no presumption of acquiescence attached when the defendant permitted his attorney to call the next witnesses because it would be wholly unreasonable to require the defendant in order to preserve his requests to proceed pro se to refuse the trial courts orders to continue with the trial holding that a defendant must demonstrate that the governments intrusion upon his relationship with his attorney created a possibility of either injury to his defense or benefit to the government in order to establish a violation of the right to counsel holding no presumption of acquiescence because defendant was never allowed to proceed pro se holding defendants pro se motion to reduce sentence was not properly before the trial court when defendant was represented by counsel since defendant may not proceed both by counsel and pro se