ORDER

TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.

Pending before the Court are Defendant Lydia Cladek's pro se Appeal of Denial of Request to Proceed Pro Se in My Appeal (Doc. 149) and pro se Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Intent to Appeal Motion Denying New Trial (Doc. 148). The government filed a Response to Defendant's Appeal of Denial of Request to Proceed Pro Se in My Appeal (Doc. 150). The Court has carefully considered the Appeal and Response, as well as the Magistrate Judge's Order denying the motion to allow Cladek to represent herself on appeal (Doc. 144). Rule 59(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates the Court set aside or modify any part of a Magistrate Judge's order that is contrary to law or clearly erroneous.

The Magistrate Judge correctly found that Ms. Cladek's request to proceed pro se is governed by Martinez v. Court of Appeals of California, 528 U.S. 152 (2000). The Magistrate Judge conducted a hearing on defendant's motion at which he inquired into defendant's education, legal experience, and her ability to perform tasks essential to an appeal. In light of the evidence, the Magistrate Judge determined that defendant's motion to proceed pro se should be denied because

Doc. 144 at 5. Explaining its decision, the court noted that "[t]o the extent that [it] has discretion to allow Defendant Cladek to represent herself on appeal, the Court has considered the relevant facts and finds self-representation is not appropriate in the appeal of this case." Id. at 4 (footnote omitted).

Ms. Cladek has no constitutional right to self-representation on appeal and, to the extent that courts have discretion to permit a defendant-appellant to proceed pro se, the Magistrate Judge determined that such an exercise of discretion was not warranted in this case. The Magistrate Judge's Order correctly cited applicable case law, applied the law to the facts elicited at the hearing, and ultimately determined that granting defendant's request to proceed pro se was not appropriate. That decision is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

1. The Magistrate Judge's Order (Doc. 144) is AFFIRMED.

2. Because defendant is not entitled to proceed pro se and is currently represented by the Federal Public Defender, any pleadings must be filed through counsel. Though it is not clear whether this Court retained jurisdiction to have considered defendant's pro se Motion for New Trial (Doc. 140), filed subsequent to the Notice of Appeal by counsel (Doc. 112), this Court nevertheless reviewed the merits of the motion rather than striking it and determined it was due to be denied (Doc. 147). To the extent that this Court may have been divested of jurisdiction to consider defendant's pro se Motion for New Trial, defendant's current Motion for Extension of Time is a nullity. However, to the extent this Court still has jurisdiction to entertain the Motion for Extension of Time, and in light of the Court's affirmance of the Magistrate Judge's denial of defendant's motion to proceed pro se on appeal, the Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Intent to Appeal Motion Denying New Trial (Doc. 148) is GRANTED for the limited purpose of providing appellate counsel the opportunity to file a Notice of Appeal if it is appropriate to do so. The Notice of Appeal must be filed no later than August 16, 2013.