to enter a judgment pursuant to a confession of judgment as long as subject-matter jurisdiction exists and the confession 'of judgment was voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made.” LOL Fin. Co. v. Carrigan, No. 0:16-CV-000651(SRN/TNL), 2016 WL 4154339, at *2 (D. Minn. Aug. 5, 2016); Orlando Residence, Ltd. v. Nelson, 565. Fed.Appx. 212, 222 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Federal courts have the power to enter confession judgments, as has been recog-; nized by courts time and again.”); Nat’l Leasing Corp. v. Williams, 80 F.R.D. 416, 418 (W.D. Pa. 1978) (“There is no legal prohibition against entering judgment by confession in a court of the United States, if federal jurisdiction exists.”);' see also D.H. Overmyer Co., Inc. v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174, 185, 92 S.Ct. 775, 31 L.Ed.2d 124 (1972) (<HOLDING>); Alland v. Consumers Credit Corp., 476 F.2d
holding ultimately that there was no edwards violation and that the waiver of counsel was valid because holman did not confess until the next day and the totality of the circumstances showed that the confession was voluntary and knowing and intelligent holding that an ijs failure to obtain a knowing and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel from a pro se petitioner is a due process violation holding that a confession of judgment provision is not per se unconstitutional and may be valid where the confession was voluntary knowing and intelligently made holding that plain error review is appropriate unless there is some evidence that the defendant made a knowing and voluntary waiver of a particular argument holding that such any and all language is per se unconstitutional for lack of particularity