dissenting.
I respectfully dissent, as I believe that the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals in affirming the conviction was not “a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
*595As the majority declares, the clearly established Federal law comes from Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 836, 96 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). In order to assert the right of self-representation, the defendant must knowingly, intelligently, and unequivocally waive his right to counsel. Id. at 835-36, 95 S.Ct. 2525; see also United States v. Martin, 25 F.3d 293, 295 (6th Cir.l994)(“To assert the right of self-representation, a defendant must do so unequivocally”). Thus, the defendant must make a choice because “[rjequiring an articulate and unmistakable demand of the right to proceed pro se decreases the danger of a savvy defendant manipulating these two mutually exclusive rights to put the [trial] court in a Catch-22.” United States v. Cromer, 389 F.3d 662, 682-83 (6th Cir.2004).
If the defendant requests to proceed pro se, the trial court must examine his request on the record and determine his intentions. The court must make the defendant “aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that ... his choice is made with eyes open.” Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. 2525.
The trial court in this case properly conducted a Faretta hearing. After a lengthy discussion with Jones, the court determined that Jones’s request was neither unequivocal nor voluntary because he would “rather not” represent himself and had “no choice” but to do so. The court found that Jones both wanted to represent himself and be represented by counsel. Because he could not choose both, his request was equivocal. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed, determining that Jones’s request was “clearly contingent on how the court ruled with respect to defendant’s requests that counsel supply him with copies of various documents, and that he be allowed to directly address the court at will.” Because Jones could not directly state that he wanted to represent himself, the state court did not unreasonably apply or reach a conclusion contrary to Faretta.
As the majority reflects, the Michigan courts followed the Michigan Supreme Court’s cases on self-representation, People v. Adkins, 452 Mich. 702, 551 N.W.2d 108 (1996); and People v. Dennany, 445 Mich. 412, 519 N.W.2d 128 (1994). It is ironic that Jones was one of the appellants in the Dennany case. In his prior case, Jones also asked to discharge his attorney and to proceed pro se. The trial court granted his request and Jones was convicted thereafter. The Michigan Supreme Court ordered a new trial because the trial court erred by failing to advise Jones “of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.” Dennany, 519 N.W.2d at 129. Now, in the case at bar, Jones was advised of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, and the trial court denied his right to represent himself. In his prior case, Jones successfully obtained a new trial because the trial court let him represent himself. In the case at bar, Jones seeks a new trial on the grounds that the court should have allowed him to represent himself. I believe that Jones is “whipsawing” the courts in raising his right to self-representation.
During the course of the proceedings in the state court, Jones acted in a manner that could be described as obstructionist. He insisted on being allowed to address the court at will, and he interrupted the court and the lawyers during the motion hearings. He twice demanded to be removed from the court room because he disagreed with the court’s rulings. This constituted serious and obstructionist misconduct that the trial court need not tolerate. The trial court found Jones to be equivocal in his request to represent himself. That is what Faretta requires.
*596On habeas review, a court must “indulge every reasonable presumption” against waiver of the right to counsel. Fowler v. Collins, 253 F.3d 244, 249 (6th Cir.2001). Therefore, I would uphold the district court in its denial of the writ of habeas corpus, when it found that the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Faretta. Thus, I would AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.