
USCA1 Opinion

	




          March 29, 1995        [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1005                                    UNITED STATES,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                   JOSEPH LUSSIER,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                        FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                     [Hon. Ernest C. Torres, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Torruella, Chief Judge,                                           ___________                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.                                            ______________                                 ____________________            Joseph Lussier on brief pro se.            ______________            Loretta  C.  Argrett,   Assistant  Attorney  General,  Robert   E.            ____________________                                   ___________        Lindsay, Alan  Hechtkopf, Michael  E. Karam, Attorneys,  Tax Division,        _______  _______________  _________________        Department of Justice, and Sheldon Whitehouse, United States Attorney,                                   __________________        on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   Appellant was  adequately advised  of his                 ___________            right  to  proceed  pro se  and  his  right  to an  appointed            attorney.1   He  was  further properly  told  that unless  he            waived the latter right, he would not be permitted to proceed            pro se and  an attorney would be  appointed.  Tuitt  v. Fair,                                                          ______________            822 F.2d 166, 167   (1st Cir.) (trial court may  "insist that            the  right to go  pro se be  conditioned upon an  express and            unequivocal waiver  of counsel"), cert. denied,  484 U.S. 945                                              ____________            (1987).   Appellant  refused to  waive his right  to counsel.            Consequently, the  district court  did not err  in appointing            counsel for him.                 Moreover,  the   district  court   did  not  abuse   its            discretion in   refusing to permit  Peter Van Daam  to sit at            counsel table, United States v. Lussier, 929 F.2d 25, 28 (1st                           ________________________            Cir. 1991)  ("no infirmity in the  district court's exclusion            of lay counsel  from the proceedings"),  or in not  requiring            appointed counsel to consult with Van Daam.                 We have  considered all of defendant's  arguments and do            not find any merit in his appeal.                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.                 ________   ___                                            ____________________            1.  In referring to appellant's right to be represented by an            attorney,  the district  court  at some  times used  the word            "counsel"  and at  other times  "attorney."   The  words were            interchangeable  in the  particular context.   To  the extent            appellant is  contending  otherwise,  we  find  the  argument            specious.
