183355P.pdf   02/21/2020  United States  v.  Ryan Luscombe
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  18-3355
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Shepherd, Author, with Grasz and Kobes, Circuit Judges] 
   Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. Whether this court applied a 
   de novo or a plain error standard of review, the district court did not 
   err in waiting until the third day of trial to terminate defendant's 
   self-representation; defendant made a valid and knowing waiver of his 
   right to counsel and his conduct during the first three days of trial, 
   while sometimes obstructionist and ineffective, did not suggest that he 
   was not competent to waive counsel; nor did the court err in failing to 
   sua sponte order a competency hearing; the district court did not err in 
   terminating defendant's self-representation on the third day of trial and 
   directing standby counsel to take over the defense as defendant's conduct 
   was more than just poor lawyering and had crossed over into seriously 
   obstructive conduct that interrupted the trial process; the district court 
   adequately explained its basis for an upward variance, and the 3553(a) 
   factors it relied on supported the variance; district court may vary 
   upwards on factors already accounted for by the guidelines; fact that the 
   government did not seek an upward variance did not make the sentence 
   substantively unreasonable; sentence was not substantively unreasonable or 
   an abuse of the district court's discretion.