IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20230
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
CALVIN EVERETT WHATLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CR-333-1
--------------------
December 29, 2000
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
We granted Calvin Everett Whatley’s motion to represent
himself on appeal from his conviction for possession of an
unregistered machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o).
Proceeding pro se, Whatley argues that the district court abused
its discretion by refusing to allow Whatley’s firearms expert to
disassemble the weapon’s trigger mechanism. Whatley does not
dispute the district court’s determination that his designated
“firearms expert” was not qualified as a gunsmith or armorer. The
district court instructed Whatley that, if the argument and
1
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
evidence indicated that total disassembly of the trigger mechanism
was warranted, the court was willing to consider ordering a more
qualified expert to perform such an investigation. Whatley,
however, never renewed his request to disassemble the trigger
mechanism. Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of
discretion in the district court’s denial of Whatley’s discovery
request. United States v. Johnston, 127 F.3d 380, 391 (5th Cir.
1997).
Whatley argues that the evidence is insufficient to support
his conviction. He contends that he had no way of knowing that the
weapon was a machine gun because it was out of his possession for
several weeks prior to his arrest and he was arrested before he had
an opportunity to inspect the weapon. The evidence shows that
Whatley purchased the PWA, Model Commando (AR-15), 5.56 mm, semi-
automatic weapon at a gun show approximately eight years before his
arrest and that he personally modified it so that it would function
as a fully automatic weapon. We find this evidence sufficient to
support the conviction. United States v. Bell, 678 F.2d 547, 549
(5th Cir. 1982) (en banc).
Finally, Whatley argues that the district court erred at
sentencing by failing to grant his pro se motion for a downward
departure based on allegedly unconstitutional conditions of
pretrial confinement. Whatley was represented by counsel during
the sentencing proceeding. He does not suggest on appeal on that
he is dissatisfied with counsel’s representation at sentencing or
2
that he requested the trial court’s permission to represent himself
at sentencing.
A defendant who is represented by counsel does not have the
right to file pro se pleadings. United States v. Mikolajczyk, 137
F.3d 237, 246 (5th Cir.), cert. denied., 525 U.S. 909 (1998);
United States v. Daniels, 572 F.2d 535, 540 (5th Cir. 1978). The
district court was not required to consider Whatley’s pro se
sentencing motion.
AFFIRMED.
3